|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,084
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,084 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Heckert has proven he can evaluate talent into the later rounds. Something we have been missing.
Larry Asante
Carlton Mitchell
Cliffton Geathers
Jordan Cameron
Owen Marecic
Buster Skrine
Jason Pinkston
Eric Hagg
Travis Benjamin
James-Michael Johnson
Ryan Miller
Emmanuel Acho
Billy Winn
Trevin Wade
Brad Smelley
Average at best.
Well, it's easy to pick the worst of what he's done and decide that that is his legacy,.....
What are you talking about? That's every pick Heckert made in the 4th round or later in his three drafts here, which flies in the face of the argument that Heckert did an above-average–to–exceptional job evaluating late-round talent. I didn't "pick the worst" of anything. It's not bad, but it certainly isn't setting the world on fire like some people are making it out to be.
Same could be said for many GM's in the league.. Jango pointed out Ozzie Newsome as an example.. does that make him less than above average.
You look at any GM, check out the 4th round down and you'll find about the same thing.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
I have no idea what he's going to do...and I don't really care either as its out of my control.
My only point of this thread was to explore what I believe to potentially be a group effort, as apposed to a "I am the law" philosophy.
I think if you put a bunch of knowledgable people in a room with the ability to speak their mind and voice their concerns then you will likely come to a rational decision that everyone can live with.
The alternative is what you said, and you would end up with a coach saddled with a player they can't use.
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Same could be said for many GM's in the league.. Jango pointed out Ozzie Newsome as an example.. does that make him less than above average.
No. His drafts in the past few years appear to be average. He also has a 15-year track record of stocking a team with championship-caliber talent. The Ravens aren't drafting to re-build a team, they're looking for guys to learn under all of the HoF- and Pro Bowl-level talent that they have. Two wholly incongruous situations.
Quote:
You look at any GM, check out the 4th round down and you'll find about the same thing.
...and when you're doing about the same as everybody else, you're doing an average job. This isn't school, with some finite grading scale where getting enough points earns you an A. Until GMs are drafting HoFers at every draft selection, it's always possible to do better than the other guys.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,798
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,798 |
Quote:
maybe speculation isn't the right word....I'm simply referring to the perception that there is no one "genus" in the group... savvy veteran gm so to speak. And I'm not privy to any info...when I mention the coordinators i'm referring to them having input into the direction the team takes.
I think that converstaion took place when chud was hired. Do i think this FO understands the direction the HC wants to take, or do I believe the HC agrees with the direction this FO wants to take?
I have no idea.
Quote:
I understand what you are saying about too many people causes chaos. Draft day isn't for knee jerk reactions. The plan...or board is set well before draft day. If you brain storm a bunch of different situations, and have a plan for each of them, then you just pull names down as they are drafted.
I would tend to agree with you. I think that sounds like a smart plan. So you may want to ask Banner what he was talking about when he said they had to reach a consensus before a player can be drafted.
We saw how last year with the new player contracts, that there were so very many trade options out there. I don't think you can actually game plan ahead of time for a lot of that. So I believe that far more than ever in the past, war rooms have to think on their feet, quickly. And one trade can wipe out what you percieve as your draft board.
I mean would you seriously draft an OT in rounds one through three? How about a WR with having Gordon and Little on the roster? At some point, need aand BPA must be brought together. And if you just moved from 6th to 18th, you're looking at a completly different animal.
Its kind of like the argument of drafting for bpa or need. The first is good...the latter bad.
Quote:
My point is that the various scenarios are planned out by the group before hand in a manner that best addresses the needs and concerns of all those involved.
All those involved? I'm pretty sure the DC is going to want a good pass rusher and I'm sure others involved will want different things. With having no second round pick, I'm not sure we will be able to address what all those involved want.
Quote:
Why is everyone getting so caught up on this? Someone OBVIOUSLY has final say. I can't remember exactly what was said, but I do believe you are right in saying they report to banner.
Oh I agree with you 100%.
Quote:
There is a big difference between one guy just flat out saying that "this is how its going to be" and a group coming up with the best possible outcomes for the team to take. This don't occur on draft day when the clock is ticking.
Obviously someone would have to make a choice that option 1 isn't going to happen, so we go with option 2. Or option one don't look possible, but if we make this trade we can accomplish the same goals as option 1 but with a different player.
Your best possible outcome changes on the fly on draft day. You have a DC wanting this player and an OC wanting that player. No mater if it's on draft day or before the draft, someone has to make that final call as you have indicated.
The entire "consensus" thing is pretty much a sham.
Quote:
Again, I'm not talking about the "player" as much as the direction. At the end of the day a team has needs. These preferably need to be addressed in free agency.
The problem is you're bidding aginst 31 other teams in the FA market. So you can't just "buy" all but a few of your needs. Hopefully we can address a few key needs in the FA market. But doesn't that put you back in a position of need over BPA in the draft?
Quote:
The head coach has to field a team...if one position is weak then you have to scheme to hide it, and that might not help in the end anyway. The head coach does have a lot of say. The trick on draft day is to put yourself in a position to get quality starters without reaching that will fill potential needs of the team down the road, or maybe right away in some cases with the higher rounds.
So if the coach has certain wants and needs, doesn't helping him fill his needs once again put you in a situation where BPA might need to be compromised just a bit?
Or do we put winning seasons on hold to draft players that will help us "on down the road"? We really can't do both at the same time can we?
Quote:
We have been a team that has been counting on late rounders to be miraculous saviors and starters out of the gate. Our higher picks were expected to part the red sea. Successful teams stick rarely throw a bunch of rookies in as starters.
Well when you have nothing to begin with, you draft the best you can and hope for the most out of those you draft. They pretty much had very little on both sides of the ball to begin with.
This new owner and staff have a pretty solid foundation to build upon. Kind of apples to oranges if you ask me.
Quote:
What evidence? That the picks weren't good? I'll give you that, the results weren't good. But here's the thing...do you know for a fact that he didn't recommend player x and bellicheck picked player y instead? Or the same didn't happen in oakland? You do realize that it's probably around 50/50 on getting a good player in the first round...and worse after that.
Well if you are sayig he may have been little more than a puppet with Bill and Al, isn't that even greater cause for concern?
Quote:
I don't know how many drafts he was a part of, but if it was say 6,
Sorry bud... I'm not going to work with some hypothetical number drawn out of thin air.
If he was a pawn in bill and Al's chess match, we're in LOTS of trouble! If he was actually in charge of those drafts we're in LOTS of trouble. There's really no way around either of those things.
Quote:
I missed what you said about banner...my only point with him is that he's been around the nfl for years. That experience is invaluable to a new owner I would think.
If you use that person in the capacity they are proven at I would agree. If you just give them the run of the ranch, I'm not so sure.
Quote:
I think they said he would "be in the war room" I would imagine if you pay a billion you can sit there if you want. Now if he's gonna do an "Al Davis" then yeah we should be worried. I don't think he's going to though.
Yes, I guess he could just sit there with his hands folded or take notes. But I don't find that end of the spectrum logical either.
Quote:
And as far as banner goes. What's your point. Maybe he did have a big head. Maybe he was set in his ways. Maybe he was training his replacement. Maybe he was getting back stabbed. Maybe he was right and Reid was wrong. Who knows?
My concern is he's being given pretty much card blanche'. Reaching into and running areas of an NFL team that's he's not really that experienced at.
Quote:
There is something to be said about sticking to a plan.
As long is it the right one and a solid one with the right people calling the shots. For every Bill, there's a lot of Romeo Crennels. Now you can use the long shot odds as an example. But the odds really don't stack up well unless you're willing to wait a LONG TIME for success.
And that doesn't resemble what Haslam told us from day 1.... does it?
Quote:
And lastly in regards to the coaching search. You and I have no idea what the plan was. You say they missed on this guy or that guy. Or they wouldn't come here because of banner or lombardi. You might be right. You certainly have a right to feel that way. I don't.
Here's what we know. Lombardi's name came out when Haslam first bought this team. So did Banners. They were right on banner. they were right on Lombardi. Lombardi was already a given before any HC was hired yet we were told a HC would be hired first.
That's true, the HC was "officially hired first". But each and every HC candidate had to be told they would be working with Lombardi. These HC candidates really had no say in the GM/ head of PP.
If you had several offers on the table would you want to be strapped to lombardi? We also know Kelly's name was mentioned and taughted as our first choice. They gave hin a seven hour interview and scheduled the second one. He hooked up with Philly postponing the second interview.
So while many of the nay sayers around here blast the press for second guessing....... They were right on Lombardi, right on Banner but totally missed on Kelly?
I've watched people convicted on capital crimes based on less circumstantial eveidence than that! But hey, if you are looking for concrete proof, overlooking the obvious seems to be all the rage these days.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820 |
Quote:
Quote:
What if the point of one of our posts was to find a solution? What if everyone put their concerns out there (which is another way of saying how it is according to you), listening to everyone else's concerns with an open mind, and coming up with something we could all live with? Then acting on it.
That's not sad, ridiculous, or stupid. That's knowing that you don't know it all, and acting in the best interest of the team.
Sure, take input from every possible source, but IMO someone needs to be the head honcho and take all of that meaningful input and make a decision. Not this "we'll come to a consensus" nonsense. Maybe they will come to a consensus 90% of the time and it won't be an issue, however if a consensus cannot be reached, someone needs to make the call. I don't like that they said if they are divided 2 and 2 on a player they'll move on - that is absurd. Someone needs to make a decision IMO.
I agree, 2/2 might be a stretch unless you are looking for mediocre.
If I owned the team, I'd have the final say if my hired hands couldn't figure it out.....I'd fire them for putting me in a position to make a bad move. It's not like I was paying them crap money to make no decisions.
" I am paying you how many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and you can't find me a good football player? Get out of here."
Unlike Randy, I think Haslam is very capable of having that speech if needed.
That gives me hope.
I sense Jimmy wants a quick turn around just as us fans do. I don't think he wants 5 year plans. He wants 1.5 year plans at this point. Give him something and the window is opened. Keep it the same and the window gets closed pretty quickly.
So, if Banner, Chud, Lombardi, etc don't start showing something, it changes, and I am all for that.
Show me you are on track or get the hell out of the way is my opinion.
It's why Heck is gone. Many liked him but we are still a last place team in our division.
I don't know if it is impossible, but last place teams in their division don't usually make the playoffs.
Win 8 games and come in last, that's another circumstance, but we usually win 3-4-5 games.
You don't deal with that long. Most anybody on this board could give those type of results, for a lot less money.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 129
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 129 |
Imagine we just announced that Ryan Leaf will be competing for the stating QB position in 2013 and we signed him to a 3 year deal. We would all hope and assume Leaf wouldn't be the starter or even the backup. Just getting him out out of prison might be a problem, but stating that he is involved in the QB equation would lead the fans to believe the entire organization is bonkers.
Hiring Lombardi is the front office equivalent of signing Ryan Leaf.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820 |
Quote:
Imagine we just announced that Ryan Leaf will be competing for the stating QB position in 2013 and we signed him to a 3 year deal. We would all hope and assume Leaf wouldn't be the starter or even the backup. Just getting him out out of prison might be a problem, but stating that he is involved in the QB equation would lead the fans to believe the entire organization is bonkers.
Hiring Lombardi is the front office equivalent of signing Ryan Leaf.
Dumb post dude, or should I just say fail?
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 129
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 129 |
Says the guy who doesn't understand the playoff structure.
"I don't know if it is impossible, but last place teams in their division don't usually make the playoffs."
Division winner goes. 2 wildcards per conference. 4 teams per division. It is impossible for the last place team to make the playoffs. So I can either assume you don't understand basic math or that you don't understand basic football. I'll have to assume it's football and ignore your posts from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820 |
LOL.....if you can't figure out the comment and choose to use it as your argument, go for it. I trust most sensible posters around here understand the comment.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I just checked. He's right. Man you look so dumb right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
I think I can get a consensus that the Browns having changed the owner, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, head coach, and general manager, are not in a consensus with the other 3 teams in their division. facepalm. I've seen this movie 6 times before, you can't convince me it is going to be any better this time around. At least we're back at the opening credits and we have 2 and a half years before this group who is watching it for the first time will see what happens for themseles. I feel like they are at the bottom of Niagara Falls stuck in the looping water. The biggest problem is the commitment to stick with the things that don't work just for commitments sake, and when things start to work, that's when they decide to change simply because of outside influences. How many times have they started over? Well, prior to the move, they started over with Bud Carson, then they started over with Bill Bellichick.. Then they blew it up and moved. Then they started over in 99, that is the 3rd time there. Then they started over when the got rid of Policy, if I remeber right. They started over with Butch Davis, and he had 2+ years Then, after interim coach Robiskie, they started over with Romeo. Then Romeo started over again with Frye instead Garcia. Then they started over with, I can't remember, ( "peter piper picked a peppersburg", a quote from a move titled "noises off" ) and I can't remember had, Edwards and Kellon Winslow 2, and Winslow missed 2 full years because of injury. Then they started over with Mangini, Then they started over in Mangini's 2nd year, with Holmgren coming in to be the "big dawg" Then they started over with Mangini out, and ... his terible Gm, and they replaced him with Heckert. And they brought in Pat Schurmur. Dick Jauron instead of freebird Michael Hayes, at defensive coordinator. Then they started over with bringing in Brad Childress and Nolon Cromwell to help out the offense. And just when it seems like they have the tiniest bit of stability, they are making changes all over the place. And NObody is sticking around, meaning. Well we know what it means, we've seen it over and over again. So I guess this it the 11th time we'll get to see the " first year" of a new big idea. 
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Give them a chance to fail before you say they are a failure.
Yes we just "Started over"
But to their word (of which is all we have to go by at this point) we are going to stick with this group (of coaches) for the "long haul"
The "long haul" to me is 5+ years at this point.
I assume, assuming Chud is still here in 3-4 years, we'll have a different QB by then, different jerseys, maybe a dome...
Hey, we really are starting over...
Lets get it right this time..
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
Then they started over with bringing in Brad Childress and Nolon Cromwell to help out the offense.
Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,820 |
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
I have to say, the board has been awesomely funny the past few days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,115
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,115 |
Agreed, Dawg66. Given the original title for this thread, we seem to have gotten into a bash Heck thread. I think he did a great job and our player talent level is up on the field and should improve significantly this season for many of them.
That said, the frantic consensus seeker types want it for good reasons. Those reasons sound swell until a "decision" is acted upon. Sometimes, with all the stakeholding, shared decisions, group input, and the buzz words go on and on, it sounds so good it must be true. I think much good can come of consesus building, positives as a process and for a larger company or entity. But I am concerned with what I saw many times: consensus building for its own sake and as an end unto itself is bad. Those who crow about a process sometimes do hide behind it and point to it as a coverup to rationalize bad outcomes. Groupspeak can lead to unanimous consensus for a horrible decision. You get watered down decisions, diluted by committee. Bigger the number, the "better" the consensus. I think 100% agreement, say on a draft pick who is bad, or not even the best available, still leaves you with a bad choice. No matter how we crow about how something is done and attach importance to it, the bum choice is still there.
What is odd is that after all this vaunted inputting, one guy has final say as to nixing it? If so, let him go ahead, let Banner do it. I hate pointless silly work.
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
Quote:
I would tend to agree with you. I think that sounds like a smart plan. So you may want to ask Banner what he was talking about when he said they had to reach a consensus before a player can be drafted.
We saw how last year with the new player contracts, that there were so very many trade options out there. I don't think you can actually game plan ahead of time for a lot of that. So I believe that far more than ever in the past, war rooms have to think on their feet, quickly. And one trade can wipe out what you percieve as your draft board.
I mean would you seriously draft an OT in rounds one through three? How about a WR with having Gordon and Little on the roster? At some point, need aand BPA must be brought together. And if you just moved from 6th to 18th, you're looking at a completly different animal.
Its kind of like the argument of drafting for bpa or need. The first is good...the latter bad.
I'm gonna focus on this, and i know my response is going to hit on some of the other stuff you said. To many things to do today 
I have no way, or no desire to ask banner anything. I honestly think you are reading too much into it. I don't think he is talking about "jo smo" the player, as much as the overall type of player, and the overall ramifications of choosing that player at that spot.
The new rookie contracts certainly changed the game in regards to the draft. I personally think that the teams that were constantly stuck in the top ten were at a huge disadvantage. There are only certain positions that should get that kind of money. When you are constantly picking that high you were putting huge amounts of guaranteed money against your cap on an unproven player that only statistically had a 50% chance of panning out. You realistically could only take a qb, stud left tackle, or a pass rusher and justify the cash. Those positions get the big money if they can play.
One could argue for a shutdown corner or stud receiver too, but i'm talking more of what positions teams end up resigning or paying big money to retain.
I don't think that all those trades wipe out a draft board at all. They can make you change your plan, but they shouldn't affect your board.
I believe that teams rank players by the best available. Position doesn't matter. So a team may have x amount of qb's, corners, linebackers...ect that they believe can work in their systems, and play at a starting level at some point.
This is why sometimes you see a run on a certain position. As names come off the board you start to see your options for a certain position diminish, and that does cause problems. This is where reaches come in, and that is a problem.
Our problem is two-fold.
We have a hard time attracting free agents. On the one had I don't really want us spending big bucks on a bunch. Last year I honestly think we wanted a solid free agent receiver. We needed one bad. I think money only goes so far. These guys want a ring too. Pretty unlikely in our division, if your on the browns.
The biggest factor though is the constant turnover of coaches and front office. This absolutely has to stop. Because of this we go into the draft with too many needs.
We need to get to the point where we don't "need" to many positions filled going into the draft. Then you can draft the best players, and they sit and learn. How many times have we seen a team stacked a position and they get a favorable trade offer for a depth defensive tackle and get a player they "need" or more draft picks.
The flip side of this is I don't want us going after a ton of free agents. I think this is bad, and causes problems in the locker room. If you start throwing money, especially if you have to over pay, at certain guys, then your own players want that money too. You can easily get your whole pay structure out of sync, by overpaying for positions that shouldn't be getting that kind of cash.
Pitt hardly ever throws money at free agents. They have their starters, and players that they draft are brought up behind them. When that guy that's a free agent wants too much, he signs somewhere else, pitt gets comp picks in the draft, and plugs the player that is now ready into the lineup and keeps going.
Baltimore has signed some guys, but only to fill certain needs. The patriots are a prime example of this too. These guys want to sign onto winning teams. And these teams aren't throwing their roster out of whack doing this either.
So where does that leave us? Building thru the draft.
Like I said earlier, I see teams ranking players according to talent and ability. They may even rank them as "nfl ready", "almost ready", and "needs a few years". These are my words, but I think they will get my point across if I can stay on topic
If rank your players according to talent and ability (as in best player available) then you can see if every pick went off exactly like you ranked what you would get that your draft slots. Now this is obviously unrealistic, but you could see different combinations of players that you would likely be able to pick.
You can also see who is available to other teams, and you can ascertain their needs as well. This is when a trade happens. Let's say we need a linebacker, but at our pick the best player is a safety (in other words, there are no linebackers anywhere near that pick on our list). We can look at our list and see that another team (that we think needs a safety) has a pick that has some of our linebackers likely available. Then this is a trade that is worth calling about.
What did we just do? We filled a need with the best player available on our board. If the trade doesn't happen...then you need to take the safety.
That is what makes a good draft in my mind. Not we got player named "x".
Teams that can make that sort of thing happen have successful drafts.
There is no quick fix for this. I think its going to take time. When I talk about consensus, it's more of everyone understanding the situation we are in, airing their concerns, and sticking together.
Realistically the consensus is ranking different options to address the needs of the group. Then on draft day you try to implement the best option, and move down from there. Is someone not going to get something that they wanted....sure. But when it happens they will be able to see why.
The best draft would be to fill every need with an nfl ready starter that is the best player available that that pick. A realistically successful draft is one that fills as many of those needs as possible with quality players, and drafts later round picks that can grow into starters down the road.
Can these guys do it? Time will tell. I think that if haslam truly gives these guys time, we will finally see the results we are all looking for.
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
I agree that this is the problem. Lerner blew this organization up so many times that he's probably on some terrorist watch list I don't see haslam doing this. He's a business man. He strikes me as the type that will do his homework, put good people in charge, and expect results. Now some will say that this means he'll blow it up too....i don't think so. He has stated that lack of continuity is a problem. I can see him sitting back and watching and evaluating. If banner gets a big head, and throws his power around, and the results are lacking, I can see him getting sat down. If chud is saying we need something, then there better be no stone unturned in trying to fix it. If banner ignores it and goes off on his own agenda, i don't see that going unnoticed. If lombardi isn't recommending players that turn out to be good, I can see questions being asked of why. Is it him...the scouts? I didn't want the reset. Personally I liked holmgren. I don't fault him for hiring shurmur, because lets face it, a big name isn't going to sign on as coach here with the turnover we have had. I thought heckert was doing a good job. We were building thru the draft, and imo just had to take our lumps while the rooks learned the system. I feel that next year we would have broke out and been alot better. I don't however fault haslam for bringing in people that he picked. I will fault him if he knee jerk blows it up in 2 years. Something deep down says that is not going to happen though...I honestly feel that we are witnessing our last rebuild. Haslam wants results...and i think he knows full well that they come from hard work, making a good plan, and sticking with it. Tweak it a little if you don't like the results, but stick to the plan.
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,798
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,798 |
Quote:
I have no way, or no desire to ask banner anything. I honestly think you are reading too much into it. I don't think he is talking about "jo smo" the player, as much as the overall type of player, and the overall ramifications of choosing that player at that spot.
To me that woud mean you would have to game plan on what positions of need you have and the BPA of every player on your first round board. You would also have to do that in the second round and feel your board matches everyone e;ses in order to aquire players.
I think you put to much emphasis on saying teams don't combine BPA with need. Every year you see draft reports of "team needs" which give you a list of four or five positions of need for almost every team in the NFL.
Ther bottom 15 or so teams (Top 15 picks in the draft), in the vast majority of cases, draft one of those positions. I don't see how logic would dicatate that they are the best BPA on the board.
What they are is the best BPA in a position of need. I give you Ryan Tannehill at #8 as an example. You seriously don't feel there were MANY players with a much higher BPA?
Quote:
There are only certain positions that should get that kind of money. You realistically could only take a qb, stud left tackle, or a pass rusher and justify the cash. Those positions get the big money if they can play.
One could argue for a shutdown corner or stud receiver too, but i'm talking more of what positions teams end up resigning or paying big money to retain.
I would put the shut down CB in that equasion. I base that on the FA market price of a good CB. The market dictates that this position be added to this group. A WR? Nah.....
Quote:
I don't think that all those trades wipe out a draft board at all. They can make you change your plan, but they shouldn't affect your board.
I see......
Quote:
I believe that teams rank players by the best available. Position doesn't matter.
This is why sometimes you see a run on a certain position. As names come off the board you start to see your options for a certain position diminish, and that does cause problems. This is where reaches come in, and that is a problem.
If that's the problem, then most of the NFL accept the top 10-15 teams have it. Your "run on position" as you described shows exactly what I have described that happens and blows the BPA discussion out of the water.
Quote:
We have a hard time attracting free agents. On the one had I don't really want us spending big bucks on a bunch. Last year I honestly think we wanted a solid free agent receiver. We needed one bad. I think money only goes so far. These guys want a ring too. Pretty unlikely in our division, if your on the browns.
Let me give you an even tougher problem. Banner is very unliked by NFL agents as he has been known to try to low ball in negotiations. So now our problem is two fold in the FA market unless he lets Lombardi somehow play the middle man.
And yes, money only goes so far, but you mean to tell me you wouldn't be willing to shell out the bucks to get Tony Gonzales at TE for a 2 or 3 year deal right now? Not that he wants to play any longer, but just as an example.
GREAT hands, excellent blocker and fine, quality guy with veteran leadership on the O side of the ball?
Quote:
The biggest factor though is the constant turnover of coaches and front office. This absolutely has to stop. Because of this we go into the draft with too many needs.
I do believe when you have turnover in the coaching department, you should hire someone with similar systems on both sides of the ball. This would eliminate the problem you have described above.
But just to stick with someone for the sake of continuity? Let me ask you, what HC have we had since 1999 that has went on to bigger and greater things?
Crennel? We saw how that went in KC. What about Chris Palmer? Mangini? I think you're starting to get the idea of where I'm going with this. No HC since our return has accomplished anything at the HC position to even suggest that firing them was the wrong thing to do.
If they had, I would tend to lean in your favor on this point. However, the evidence suggests otherwise.
Quote:
We need to get to the point where we don't "need" to many positions filled going into the draft. Then you can draft the best players, and they sit and learn.
Oh I agree with you there, but as you yourself just suggested, we aren't there as of now.
Quote:
How many times have we seen a team stacked a position and they get a favorable trade offer for a depth defensive tackle and get a player they "need" or more draft picks.
I rarely ever see a team get more from a player on their roster than the draft pick invested in them accept at QB or LT. Pass rusher on rare occasion. It happens but it's far more the acception to the rule than the rule itself.
Quote:
The flip side of this is I don't want us going after a ton of free agents. I think this is bad, and causes problems in the locker room. If you start throwing money, especially if you have to over pay, at certain guys, then your own players want that money too. You can easily get your whole pay structure out of sync, by overpaying for positions that shouldn't be getting that kind of cash.
I agree. The thing is, as in the case I presented with Gonzales, who on this roster could possibly put their playing resume' against his when talking money? So I would say no more than two or three top tier FA's. The rest? For depth and situational positions.
Quote:
Pitt hardly ever throws money at free agents. They have their starters, and players that they draft are brought up behind them. When that guy that's a free agent wants too much, he signs somewhere else, pitt gets comp picks in the draft, and plugs the player that is now ready into the lineup and keeps going.
Baltimore has signed some guys, but only to fill certain needs. The patriots are a prime example of this too. These guys want to sign onto winning teams. And these teams aren't throwing their roster out of whack doing this either.
And I would say when we get to the point we're a winning team, we can begin to work in that direction.
But you pointed out above how teams in the top half and beyond often times create runs on positions due to need. They have to get to a point where the Steelers and Rats are in orde to draft as you have described.
The problem i, the man who laid all of the groundwork for that to happen is no longer in the building.
Quote:
Like I said earlier, I see teams ranking players according to talent and ability. They may even rank them as "nfl ready", "almost ready", and "needs a few years". These are my words, but I think they will get my point across if I can stay on topic
You actually have made all of the points needed in this discussion. We are not a highly competative team like the Rats. We are not in a position to stack players at positions strictly based on BPA. We do have major positions of need unlike the top teams in the NFL that have the luxury to use the draft startegy you have suggested.
If we were to engage that startegy, it would be a very long time for us to compete. You said it yourself, we must build through the draft because we have so much need.
And the entire trades scenario? You have to have a partner. You can't pick and choose when or where you find one. Feeling one will just feel fall in your lap that puts you in a prime position to let you fill a need right where the BPA falls in a position of need for you sounds great!
But if that's how it worked, we wouldn't be where we are now. It's a nice thing to dream about, yet a very unlikely theory IMO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Consensus...
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
