DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Who will be the QB IV: A New Hope

In reply to Loki who ended the last thread...

If you want Flacco, you won't have the #6. Hence why I said to get Kruger...

Thought this belonged in here:

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-brow...chance-1.375731

Browns CEO Joe Banner says QB likely won't be target with No. 6 pick; Brandon Weeden to get chance

By Nate UlrichPublished: February 23, 2013


Browns CEO Joe Banner indicated it’s unlikely the organization would use the sixth overall pick in this year’s draft on a quarterback and said the team will give incumbent starter Brandon Weeden his best chance to succeed.

“It’s not the focus of our thinking,” Banner said of drafting a quarterback at No. 6.

Banner insisted his statement about the team's quarterback situation is not a smokescreen.

“I will not lie to anybody here,” Banner said. “I will not mislead you. I may not answer you. I may be incomplete in my answer. So I’m not telling you we would or wouldn’t pick a quarterback in the first round or the second round. I’m just not doing that. But I’m also kind of I think implying that that’s not what I expect to have happen. I just don’t play that game.”

The Browns don’t have a second-round pick, but Banner didn’t rule out trading down to acquire one.

When asked if the Browns have discussed trading for San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith, Banner said they have explored all possibilities to acquire competition for Weeden. But Banner also said he believes Weeden can be better in his second NFL season and benefit from being coached by offensive coordinator Norv Turner.

“We see potential there we want to work with,” Banner said. … “We’re going to give Brandon his best chance to succeed.”

I might be reading what I want to read but sounds like no plans to take a QB early and no plans to trade for Alex Smith. Still feel like we will bring in a FA QB and then draft one in the 3rd. Be thankful Barkley has an injured shoulder lol.

Banner also said they have been trying to convince a team to part with a QB. Ryan Mallett would be the odds on favorite for that one, although there is a chance Chud would want Jimmy Clausen.

He didn't say that they wouldn't trade him. But, it appears that they may be willing to give him a shot because the trial balloon about trading him drew no interest. The Browns are probably the best opportunity for Weeden to succeed because there is no interest from other teams for a 29-going-on-30 y.o. second year QB.

I agree with you Mourgrym that the Browns will likely bring in a free agent QB to compete with Weeden (and yes, McCoy) for the starting job. I thought that we might have used a draft pick on a QB (especially if we moved one), but I'm not so sure of that if we can't (or don't) move either one. We may simply bring in a free agent to compete with them.

I have issues with Banner and it's really not fair to him but I do.

I can't put my finger on it yet but this article kinda brings a little to light. He does some doublespeak.. FWIW.

Anyway, I believe his comments are an acknowledgement that there isn't much out there to choose from in the way of FA's or players that may be available via trade and certainly, in this particular draft, there isn't an andrew luck or RG3 anywhere in sight. No sure things.. that's pretty clear.

Taking a project in the later rounds seems like the thing to do.. Bring in a DA as backup or see if Thad Lewis can be something to work with. (Yeah, I'm convinced McCoy is gone)

JMO

Someone posted that the Ravens were at 15mil jan 2013 under cap space. I think thats not the correct number to go off of.

Since they have signed Rice, they will be only 9mill under the cap.

With Flacco's ego its hard to tell if the Ravens will be able to sign him at all. Just not enough room.

I truly think that Baltimore is going to see how close they are as far as structure of a deal in concerned, and then decide which tag to use on Flacco. (If they have to use a tag at all)

If they are close, then they probably use the non exclusive tag. They can then either match a deal, or get 2 1st round draft picks if someone else signs Flacco. This tag costs them $14 million immediately against the cap, and makes it difficult to sign anyone untilt eh Flacco situation is resolved.

The exclusive tag would cost them $20 million against the cap. They would have to cut players to make room using that tag. If they are far enough away that they can't get a deal together under the non-exclusive tag, they may decline to use the exclusive tag, because they simply cannot afford it. I look at it this way ...... if they feel that they need to stay within the range of $14-15 million per year, why would they lock in $20 million for the year, with a potential year 2 franchise tag costing them $24 million, and then a potential year 3 costing almost $35 million? It doesn't make sense.

2013 NFL Combine: Transcript from interview with Browns CEO Joe Banner
By Nate Ulrich Published: February 23, 2013

Browns CEO Joe Banner met with local reporters this morning at the NFL Scouting Combine. Here is a transcript from the news conference:

What are you going to do with returner Josh Cribbs and kicker Josh Dawson? Will any of your free agents be back?: “We do know, but we won’t say.”

Why?: “Because in terms of communicating with them – let’s say we’re trying to sign them and I told you we want to bring them back – that certainly wouldn’t be a very smart thing from a negotiating perspective. If we weren’t, we don’t need to tell the other teams who’s going to be free or not free any earlier than necessary.”

Is that smart from a fan perspective for a guy like Dawson?: “My attitude – and you’ll see this and sometimes it will frustrate people – is all the fans want us to do is win. So when we make decisions we think are ultimately putting us in the best position to win, that’s the best thing for everybody in the end. Whether the fans know the outcome of those two questions today or two weeks from now, I’m not sure there’s something consequential there other than they’d like to know and we understand that. In the end they want us to make the right decisions and win football games.”

What’s the argument against bringing Dawson back?: “I don’t want to go there because I’m not going to answer whether he’s going to be there or not. If I start getting into why he wouldn’t be there, it’s not going to be helpful.”

You could have signed them in December and saved some money: “I’m a believer in your own players you want to keep to try do it early. But I just got here in the middle of the season, who whoever was going to be a free agent, there wasn’t the opportunity. When I say early, I the year before would be my preference.”

Maybe with Dawson it’s more about him wanting to go somewhere else?: “I don’t know if you can say that. There’s a market out there I’m sure he’s familiarizing himself with in terms of how many kickers and what’s the value and how much cap room is out there and what players are getting. I’m sure that would affect his position and our position.”

How much cap space do you have?: “There are two cap numbers. I won’t give you the numbers. The one is gross on paper what they are. Those numbers don’t include the rookie pool allocation. They don’t include players you’re going to tender, exclusive right players that aren’t under contract. The actual number of cap room vs. what you see for any team is dramatically lower. But we have a lot of cap room. We have the cap room to do what we want, whether it’s to keep our own players or being active in the free-agent market.”

What about other teams free agents? How many big name players do you anticipate adding?: “That’s kind of hard to say. We’re still finalizing what we’d like to do, assuming we can actually control that. The fact we have cap room and other teams don’t I think will help us in the market place. Supply vs. the available cap room is on the teams’ side for the moment. That tends to go back and forth. I view this as a good year to be in the free agent market and to be able to get fair market value. Historically, by definition, you generally have to overpay to get free agents especially in the early part of it. I don’t think you’re going to get any bargains, but I think there is a better chance of getting fair market value in free agency. You never know, but I would expect us to be participants in free agency. How big the names are, that will be determined as we see who’s available and who’s interested in us and who we’re interested in.”

How does that 89 percent rule affect things? Do you have to spend so much this year?: “It doesn’t affect us at all. We’re going to be an active, aggressive team in spending over the years. I say years on purpose. In a given year, depending on where you’re at, you might not be but over the course years we’ll be on the aggressive end of team spending.”

What will you do with the No. 6 pick in the draft? Trade up, trade down, stay put?: “Hard to know until after we see what we come out of free agency with and finish drafting. My history has been more trading down than up or staying. I have had some instances where we’ve traded up for a player we thought was really good at a position we thought was difference making. But historically I have either stayed or traded back. Accumulating picks over the course the course of the draft is a good strategy generally.”

How badly would you like to get back in the second round? Can you tell if this is a draft where teams want to get back up in the top 10?: “Despite all the coverage that goes on, I don’t think the drafts have been that much different. There are usually some teams that want to move up. It’s never a ton. There’s always a team that has a need that is four or 10 picks back. I can’t remember ever sitting in first round and not getting calls from somebody inquiring about moving up. I assume that will be the same. It’s just too early to know especially with free agency being so close and planning to have some activity in it.”

What are your thoughts on the Josh Gordon pick?: “It’s to be determined. I think Josh has to keep working hard and improving. I’d be surprised if Josh didn’t say there were things he was doing well and things he could be doing better. A top of the second round pick on a wide receiver you would hope by the second or third year you’d have big, big impact player. I think he still has improvements you could make and there’s hope that he can do that. He’s still got to grow and work hard in order to answer that question.”

Do you have your QB?: “Well, we’ll see. I think [Browns coach Rob Chudzinski] told you yesterday they think they can work with Brandon [Weeden]. He obviously has a lot of redeeming qualities. Most of the time, although last year was an aberration, you see big improvement from year 1 to year 2 in players who are going to become good players. He’s in the window where you need to see the kind of development if he’s going to be the long-term answer.”

Sounds like damning with faint praise?: “I’m not sure if I’d say damning, but it’s the same with Josh. These are guys who have shown some potential. But if they flattened at the level they are at now or didn’t have the determination to be the best they could be because of work ethic and things like that then they probably won’t be good enough to be on a team that will try to win a championship. On the other hand, they seem to have the ability that if they are willing to make the commitment, take the coaching, be part of kind of the culture that we are going to create in the organization with the team that is going to be a very physical, determined, hard working group then maybe they can be part of the team.”

Does Brandon benefit from the addition of offensive coordinator Norv Turner and a different offensive philosophy?: “With Chud’s experience and Norv’s experience with young quarterbacks and the system we will run . . . The biggest thing for Brandon is going from year 1 to year 2. On almost any position on the team you see that as a crucial time. You see a lot of players that turn out really, really good that struggled in year one. It’s to be determined if he’s one of those or not. You’ve got people who have proven they can work with a young quarterback and develop him combined with the fact he’s going year one from year two.”

Every regime says same thing. Why will yours be different?: “I said from Day One I’m not going to try to win that debate. I understand the skepticism and it’s justified. We’re in a prove-it place. That’s the right place for us to be. I’m just confident that the quality of people that we are brining in, the track record that they have and I have that we will be successful at this. But I don’t expect anybody to believe that or rely on that until we prove it.”

Every new group guts the roster. Will you need to do that?: “I don’t think we need to gut it. We have the benefit of inheriting two things that will help us a lot. We have a relatively small number of our own players that we could lose. That always gives you a change o move forward instead of retrench. Second of all, we inherited a team that was in very good shape with the cap.”

Have you figured out how you will acquire your QB competition– trade, free agency?: “No, we haven’t.”

Is there a chance you would use No. 6 on a QB?: “I don’t mean to be stupid with the answer (but) if we thought there was a QB at No. 6 that we thought was going to be a top player we would have to consider that.”

Will there be competition the backup quarterback position too?: “What we would like to do is create as much possible competition with as high a quality of player as we possibly can.”

Was their issue with how hard Weeden worked?: “My impression was that he took coaching well. So, I’m hoping that will be a positive thing.”

Have you discussed trading for San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith?: “As I’ve said, we’ve discussed every quarterback who’s available in trade or free agency or even those that we think we could maybe make somebody who wasn’t planning on making available in trade. But what the outcome of that discussion is, I’m not going to get into. But we’ve talked about every single possible player at the positions we think we’re focusing on right now.”

Does not having second-round pick hamstring you in terms of trying to make a trade?: “You generally would like to have all your picks, but if Josh Gordon turns out to be a good player, then we’ll have used the pick wisely.”

Are you more reluctant to give up another pick?: “Yes.”

In your opening remarks about Weeden, it almost kind of sounded like you were leaning toward thinking that maybe he is somebody you guys could move forward with. Is that an accurate perception?: “Well, I think we want to give him the best chance to succeed. We have a huge vested interest in him being successful. We think that we’re bringing in coaches that can maximize that. We think we have some existing benefits. I actually think the most valuable a quarterback can have is an offensive line that’s good. He’s in an unusual position of coming in as a rookie and inheriting a team that has a good offensive line. So we have a huge vested interest. It will accelerate our ability to get to where we want to if he succeeds.”

In a draft in which it’s not supposed to be a strong quarterback class, would some of your assets better be used on other positions?: “The biggest mistake we could make is to force something because we need it. So we can’t do that, which doesn’t mean that need doesn’t matter. We’re not one of these guys that says, ‘Oh, you just pick the best athlete all the time.’ But you don’t bypass a guy that’s a really good player to fill a need. That said, you have to make sure whether it’s what we have or we have to get that you have a really, really strong player at that particular position. But if we picked a quarterback just ‘cause we’re worried we’re not good enough there just to pick somebody who we’re not even that sure about, that would be a bad mistake.”

How do you assess your offensive line and pass rush?: “I think our offensive line is good and it could get better. I think as we switch to the 3-4 and as I said before even if we stayed in the 4-3, the defensive front [seven] needs some additions to be able to compete with the best in the league.”

What does it mean to you to acquire players who want to be part of the organization?: “You’re asking a right question. We won’t know that for a few weeks. But we think that Jimmy [Haslam] coming in as the owner is a tone changer. We think around the league the hiring of Chuds and the quality of the staff is perceived both in terms of its quality and the message it sends about what we’re committed to, the investments we’re willing to make to win. Aside from Chuds, both Norv [Turner] and Ray [Horton] have reputations from players, talking to players, as people you really want to play for that they like playing for, that they have a lot of respect, that they think will be successful. I think the division we’re in is one that players that are driven that are kind of driven by being competitive would be excited to be in. So I think we have a good story to tell. But it’s a better story, despite perception most players want to play where they believe they can win. So once we’ve actually proven the questions you’re asking that we’re going to be different than the previous regimes and we’re going to win here, it will get easier. But I still think we’ll still be successful in recruiting the primary guys we’ll be looking for.”

Going back to you saying we still need players on the defensive front to compete with the best in the league, do you mean the front seven or the defensive line?: “Front seven.”

When you talk about perception around the league, there’s also perception that Mike Lombardi, vice president of player personnel, is a TV guy who hasn’t worked in the league for five years and that your expertise in Philadelphia was business and contracts. Could you address that in terms of bringing in players?: “I think the people around the country and around the league that know don’t share those perceptions. So I think people in the league know that I was intimately involved in the small group of people who made the football decisions in Philadelphia that led to a lot of success. I think the people that know Mike Lombardi as it relates to his player evaluation ability would feel like it’s a good combination, that we can build a successful organization. I don’t think some free agents or the agents of the free agents are going to be telling them [anything] other than they expect Cleveland to turn around and be successful.”

What about the process of hiring Lombardi? There were reports about him for months from pretty credible people that were denied, talked around. Then all of the sudden he was magically hired: “I don’t think they were ever denied. When I was asked, I always said I wasn’t going to get into the specifics of it. So I never acknowledged or denied. My facetious [answer] is a broken clock is right twice a day. So there’s a lot of stories about which there’s a lot of speculation. Occasionally the speculation comes true. It doesn’t mean that it was fact before it became fact. Mike was always a consideration in my mind. He was one of the people I intended to talk to and interview. I knew him well. I had positive experiences with him. But until the end, he was not the guy.”

How many guys did you interview for the personnel chief position?: “I’ve told people three to five and I haven’t gotten any more specific than that.”

Fans didn’t want Lombardi. Does that concern you at all?: “As I said, I think what people ultimately want is for the team to be successful and to win games. I’d be concerned if people thought we were dishonest. I don’t think you’ll ever experience that with me. I don’t think you’ll every experience that with Jimmy. I don’t think you’ll see that in Chuds. I don’t think you’ll see that in this administration. We haven’t done that. We won’t do that. I think in the end they want us to be right even when we do something they didn’t believe in because they ultimately want to be able to watch the team on Sundays and feel good and be excited and be proud of it.”

What is your philosophy on listening to trade offers for any of your players?: “I mean I’m not going to say the cliché-ish, ‘We’d always listen and we will make inquiries and stuff like that.’ I would not expect at this point and time that we’re going to be receptive to trading our players. We’re looking to build on the players we have and take this thing to a higher level over some period of time.”

Will you cut any more starting-caliber players like defensive end Frostee Rucker?: “My answer is because you said 'could I see' is no, but at the same time, if something comes up in two months and we do that, I don't want somebody to feel like we were misleading or lying. I don't expect that to happen, but you never know what call you're going to get or who you could pick up as a free agent that you didn't think would be available or you thought was going to be too expensive to get and then you go make a move. It's not because I'm not being forthcoming with you. It's just circumstances could change. But my expectation is that that won't happen. My best guess is that won't happen.”

Are you shopping anyone?: “No, we're not shopping anyone.”

Why was Rucker cut?: “We didn't intend to keep him on the team but the specific timing of it related to not any money that was due but some money that was guaranteed. There are players with roster bonuses and money that could become guaranteed but as I say, since we're not anticipating any additional moves of players, they won't drive any decisions.”

Will you use the franchise tag?: “No.”

Why change the defense?: “I think we felt like the defense wasn't good enough to be very direct about it. If you went into some of the more sophisticated breakdowns of the defense this year, and by that I mean some of these systems that take out certain plays and that truly measure your success at crucial times in crucial situations, and so on and so forth, we were ranked 20 or lower in most of those categories. So, I think that, combined with the belief that we wanted to have a more aggressive, attacking defense, because we want to bring in more aggressive-minded players, we want to be risk-takers, we want to be attacking, we want the other team to be on the defensive. It doesn't mean it was wrong, but that wasn't the scheme we were running, so this felt like it fit more the type of players we want to bring in and the mindset we want to create. The way we want our opponents to perceive us. We want them to be worried about where we're kind of coming from and what's going to happen, what are we going to do next.”

But didn't linebacker Chris Gocong or defensive tackle Phil Taylor missing most or all of the season with injuries explain that?: “The reality is, the team overall was pretty healthy last year compared to most of the teams around the league. We did pretty well last year. That doesn't mean we didn't miss any players because everybody does, but if you broke down our health situation, and I'm going team wide when I say this, I would hope we could come out as healthy next year as we did this year.”

Did you want a risk-taking defense before hiring Chudzinski and Horton?: “It was the philosophy that contributed to us wanting to hire them. As I say, it may be right or it may be wrong, but everything we will do will come out of a philosophy from a plan. There will be no whims, there will be no flying by the seat of our pants. So the idea of having a team that's aggressive, the players we bring in will be aggressive attacking competitive, mad as hell when we lose type of people. We're going to have an offensive and coordinator who are going to call a game with that kind of aggressiveness that we want our opponents to be on the defensive. We never want to be on the defensive. They're willing to take chances, which will occasionally blow up in our faces, but overall we think over time will prove to be successful. That will be true by the way on the player personnel front as well as the coaching front. That will be the mentality of the of the organization. So we're hiring people that will fit that culture, whether they be players, marketing people or coaches.”

Did you know which defensive scheme you wanted before hiring Chudzinski?: “I'm not sure that's true, because when I was in Philly, we had Jim Johnson who ran a very aggressive 4-3, so I don't think you can't run this out of a 4-3. I'll tell you what made a difference. We went in pretty neutral, probably a very small bias into the coaching search but pretty neutral, but every offensive coach we interviewed, we asked them what they did and what coaches give them the biggest problems and every single offensive coach we interviewed said this kind of 3-4, 4-3, defense was the one that was the hardest thing for them to play against. As we went through that process, it probably increased our bias a little bit towards thinking that somebody running that was probably on the right track.

Did a game or two last season solidify your thoughts on changing defenses?: “I'm not sure it was any particular game. It was just a general observation that if we wanted to be this kind of aggressive team, that we didn't really have kind of the right mindset, culture through the whole organization with the type of player, the way we were utilizing the players. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of teams using that that win. It isn't by definition wrong. It's just not what we decided we wanted to be.”

Weeden will be turning 30 in October. Do you want to invest in him?: “Yeah, if he can do the job. Would it be better if he was 24? Of course, but there's no reason to think he can't play five or six more years and if he can play well for us for five or six years, that would be great.”

Is the read-option offense a fad?: “I don't think it's a fad, but I think for some times it will be right and for some teams it will be wrong. You better make sure you know how to stop it on defense. I think there will be enough teams using it or at least integrating it into what they do that you better have coaches that are progressive enough to see where the game is going as opposed to where it's been and start to prepare themselves to be able to deal with that. I think our particular situations, obviously Chud did in Carolina with Cam so he's well-equipped to it if he decides that's the best utilization of the personnel. But I don't think it's one of those things if you don't use you're behind the times, or if you do use you're catching on with a fad. It depends on your situation, your personnel.”

Why is Lombardi not here?: “He’s here.”

Here in the room? Why isn’t he accessible to the media?: “Would that be fun? Video it? I think he’s focused on the meetings we’re having with ourselves and the combine, and I think that’s the best utilization of his time right now.”

Is he going to be accessible?: “He will be accessible as we would plan on making the personnel position accessible. So as we get into free agency, the draft and things like that and there are things that would be his area of expertise, he’ll be available.”

It won’t just be you speaking for the team?: “No, no, [Lombardi] will speak.”

In free agency, will you try to get few guys or spend cash on a big name?: “I’ve done both. I don’t have a rule. I think you need a certain number of impact, difference-making players at key positions to be a really good football team. Sometimes you get those through free agency, preferably you’re drafting them and developing them. But I’ve also picked up a lot of less expensive players that have turned out to really contribute. So we’d be open to either.”

Guys with attitude like Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace, do they scare you away?: “I’m not going to get into obviously a particular player, I’ll get fined and I don’t want to do that right now. Here’s the difference for me. Somebody that’s a little bit flamboyant but is a really hard worker and really badly wants to be the best he can be and really wants to play on a winning team doesn’t scare me. Players that have off-the-field problems or aren’t driven to be great we will stay away from. So it’s more of an attitudinal thing, but we will have a culture, the team will be filled with high-character, really hard-working people.”

Have you already identified positions best filled through draft vs. free agency?: “We’ve made the assessment in terms of what positions through our scouts we think are most deep in the draft, which means people like mike and myself and Chuds and the position coaches are still catching up on that stuff. But we at least have what the scouts think. It’s a little more driven by where we think there are impact free agents, whether they be highly visible or less visible players, that could fill spots successfully, that will still be holding those spots 2 or 3 years down the road. That’ll be the focus. So if we can get some of those in free agency, then it’s more likely it affects who we draft than the other way around.”

Georgia linebacker Jarvis Jones was diagnosed with spinal stenosis in 2009. Is that a deal breaker in terms of using the No. 6 pick on him?: “Not commenting on any particular player, but we will put a lot of weight in the recommendations from our medical staff on any player, whether it’s a particular serious injury or whether it’s just a history of a lot of small injuries. You want to try to get as many players as you can that you can be optimistic are going to be healthy and there every week. Our draft meetings will include our medical staff and they’ll weigh in and give us their evaluation of every player we’re considering, and that will matter. We will, and I don’t know how many teams do this, but we will put a grade for durability on every player in free agency and the draft, and that will be a factor in what we do.”

What’s your evaluation of the quarterback class? With no second-round pick, would you take one at No. 6?: “It’s just going to depend on the evaluations. It’s too early. We really haven’t studied. You do a superficial but that’s often misleading. We’re not at the point. But it’s not the focus of our thinking, I think is kind of a way to be helpful without getting too specific. But at the same time I don’t think – and you’ve seen my history -- you can’t have too many good quarterbacks. They’re valuable assets. In Philadelphia we were very successful in if we had more than one getting great value for the more than one.”

The 49ers have 14 draft picks. Is that too many?: “They have an asset. Wouldn’t you like to be the 49ers and feel like you have a quarterback you can trade and get more value to make your team even better? That would be a great place to be. So we’ll always be interested in anybody who we think is or has the potential to be a really good quarterback. At the same time, we’re not going to force it while we have other things that are important to make sure we fill in at the same time.”

This far along in quarterback evaluations, in the worst case, do you feel comfortable with what you have?: “I think we’ll feel comfortable when we’re able to sit here and tell you we have a starter that we’re sure is a guy that can lead us to a championship. Whereas we’re hopeful and we’re going to give Brandon his best chance to succeed, I don’t think any of us say we know that yet. So until we can sit here and say that, I think we’re going to be working that position.”

Browns cornerback Joe Haden has talent, but character issues. Do you need to talk to him?: “Again, avoiding a particular name, a player that is not going to get in off-field trouble and that comes to work on time every day, works really hard, is determined to be the best he can be will generically and generally be able to fit into the team we’re going to have and the culture we’re going to have. The player that isn’t working his hardest or we’re worried about what’s going to happen when he’s not at the office – we could make a mistake and not know everything – but we will not intentionally be putting on this team.”

Last year before the draft, the old regime said McCoy was their guy. Now you’re talking Weeden up. Is all of this talk a smokescreen?: “I’ll speak for myself, OK. I will not lie to anybody here. I will not mislead you. I may not answer you. I may be incomplete in my answer. So I’m not telling you we would or wouldn’t pick a quarterback in the first round or the second round, I’m just not doing that. But I’m also kind of I think implying that that’s not what I expect to have happen. So I won’t play that, I just don’t play that game. But I understand what you’re saying about what goes on out there. You may be frustrated sometimes that you wish I would say more, I could be guilty of that. But if I answer a question directly, I’m telling you the truth to the best of my knowledge.”

Is No. 6 too high to take a guard?: “I mean if you knew he was John Hannah I guess maybe not but it wouldn’t fit. Again I wouldn’t rule anything out but it wouldn’t philosophically fit with how we’re approaching the priorities and how we’re building the team. That doesn’t mean that their isn’t exception or unusual situation or a player that’s so special that you wouldn’t look at.”

Are you happy with six draft picks or do you want more?: “I think you always want to have more picks. And then really good teams, really good teams are hitting on 50 percent of the picks so if you hit on 50 percent of 6 picks versus 50 percent of 10 picks that’s a big difference in building your team. And when I say hitting on I don’t mean like starters or start players but contributors so it could be a nickel corner or third wide receiver, top special teams player but you getting half of the players your picking are contributing to the growth of your team.”

So you guys are only going to get three good players this year, huh?: “I said if we’re really good. If you study the league that’s the reality so I’m a big believer in accumulating picks whether you have 6 or 10. If there’s an opportunity, and I think if you study it history says more often than not trading back in the right situations makes sense but at the same time you don’t want to be passing up good players if they’re there when your pick comes up.”

The 49ers have 14 picks – is that a really high number?: “That’s a really high number. That’s what you’d like to get to is be a good team and have 10, 12 picks per year. ”

What does a team like that do with 14 picks?: “I’ll tell you what I bet they’ll do is trade some of them for future picks and they’ll perpetuate it and if they’re smart, which they are, that’s what they’ll do. You really don’t want to take 14 picks. It’s too hard for your coaches to mesh all those players and you run the risk of good players not making the team because you have too many rookies. But probably on paper, and I don’t know this for sure, they have 7 the next year so if they took 3 of them and ended up picking 11 players and now they get 10 for the next year they have a chance to sustain. This is what I’m talking about us trying to get to the point with what we’re doing, this is how you sustain success in the NFL when it’s set up so you shouldn’t be able to sustain success. That’s exactly what you do.”

Do you put a number on the amount of players you’re away from being where you want to be?: “Uh huh.”

Can you share that number?: “No.”

The term impact player – how many do you need to have to get where you want to be?: “I don’t know the answer to that. The flip of it though is to me the more important answer. You have to have 22 players in which none are weak enough to get exploited. The league’s too good, the coaches are too smart. If you find yourself in a position of any of the 22 players where you actually have a weak player you’re in trouble. So to me it’s more important to get to the point where you have 22 starters who are all at least solid starters and then you want to have as many impact players as you can but even if you have a number of impact players but you have some holes, like true holes, exploitable weaknesses you’re in trouble so more importantly to me is we get to the point where we have 22 starters we feel are all solid and then complimenting that.”

How many of those do you have now?: “Nice try.”

Does that make cornerback your No. 1 need?: “I’m not going to prioritize them but … we’re not going rush and make a mistake because we have a need and leave ourselves in a position where we have to solve the same problem twice. We do have an order of what we’d like to solve if the world falls the way we want it to. But if it doesn’t, we’re not going to force it just so that we’re not going into this season with some glaring hole when its really going to hurt us with where we want to be two, three years from now.”
web page

I don't know how they'll do it, but they will keep flacco..

Nice interview and I like Banners answers.

Totally beliveable IMO.

Yeah, I thought that it was a good interview.

It was almost like " I'll do my best to answer questions when I can, and as fully as I can, but I'm not going to give up an advantage just to answer a question, and I hope that people would understand that. If I said something in a definitive way, then that's the direction we're heading. If I'm being evasive, then I don't want to tip my hand."

All perfectly understandable positions to take.

That's the problem good teams face. You have players who help you win, who are at lower level contracts, then what their reward.


I don't know if it is a mismanagemet issue. Sometimes it's just the way the cards fall.

It's great if you draft a lesser known QB who ends up studding out, but as is being played out in Baltimore, it can hurt you 4 years down the road because you can be sure you are going to have to pony up.

It's a whole lot easier if you pony up at the front end and it works out for everybody since you have based everything else off the QB number.

OK,, now, let me pose a question to all.,.

What is the number? I mean, what is the number that Ozzie and the Ravens will not exceed? In other words, how much is too much?

And let's just say, somehow, he hits the market, the Browns have some ungodly number in terms of CAP space. Do we give up this years 1st and next years 1st and a boat load of money knowing full well we need more than just a QB that was OK during the season but really turned it on in the playoffs (almost as perfect as can be really)

How much do we pay him? Would he even come here?

See, there is no Bolden here. I mean, Gordon might be,,, Little looks to be gaining ground. But no Bolden.

Do you give up a kings ransom in both money and picks with the full knowledge you won't be able to add any incredible talent for a couple of years?

Do you do that if you are the GM?

I don't, but then I'm an old tightwad LOL

I see what Weedens got, I dump or trade McCoy, I keep Thad Lewis, I find a diamond in the rough QB in the later rounds or off the "we give up on him" bin and take a shot at it by taking some talent that can add serious polish to the team..,

All this talk of Flacco is dimentia.

Flacco is not going anywhere... In the NFL, the game relies on the QB. You will struggle until you have one.

And Flacco is more than the game manager, let's face it, a game manager has not won a super bowl in 10 years.

Ozzie knows that. Baltimore knows that. Baltimore will let other players go, but keeping Flacco is their number one priority, it is just a matter of price.

Thanks for the share, Mourg.

This interview was a bit of an eye-opener for me. It was nice to read so much from Banner, who has been a bit of an enigma for me. I've heard enough about him to have my antennae up, but not much of substance- until this read.

My take: he's going to play it close to the vest with our media... which ain't necessarily a bad thang. I mean... any little tidbit they can wring out of an interview becomes something that other teams can parse, and use to their advantage. As a fan, I'd rather be kept guessing, if it means that the rest of the league is on the same footing as I. I can live with a certain amount of that.

His description of "The Process" seems to be value-oriented.... which means that sometimes, they will make choices that The Average Fan won't like... but could bring positive results down the line. Sometimes, we make judgments without being in the meetings, and don't know what the insiders do. That can lead us to completely different conclusions about players we love/hate.

I like that he stated the base philosophy (at present) is to work hard to get the max from the players we already have, instead of simply purging to make the team "their own." Can we believe it? No guarantees- but I sure hope so.

CULTURE. I've banged that drum for almost 10 years here, and it was reassuring to hear that it's at (or near) the top of the new admin's list of priorities. The "aggressive" thing- Me likey. It's football, for God's sake. I watch this game to be entertained, and to be quite honest- I'm overdue for a team that takes a few chances on the field. If we go for it all, and get shot down in a ball of flames at the end of the 4th qtr, it will be better than seeing the Romeo/Mangini "Play to lose a squeaker" style that has epitomized Browns football for the past 3/4 of a decade. I'll take an exciting loss over a boring thrashing any day. 4th & 3- go for it? If it will tip the game in our favor, YUP.

I like that the med staff will have a voice in FA/draft decisions. Teams that stay healthy (throughout the season and from season to season) climb the rankings... and start making yearly playoff runs. This team has been snake-bit for YEARS by shaky personnel, aging, over-the-hill FA, and lack of depth. Credit Tom Heckert, for "youthing up" this team over the past 2 offseasons. There is now a core of young players who can bang with the league, and stay on the field for 16+ games. That is HUGE.

After months of speculation, no answers, and only Grossi-type rumor-mongering to go on, it was at least a bit reassuring to hear some of what Banner had to say. As I read through the interview, I felt a bit more confident that there was a plan, a procedure that was being worked behind the scenes. I'm still not totally sold that we'll get instant improvement, but I'm less skeptical about the intital direction this new regime is going to take.

Looking forward to seeing what FA and the draft brings... and if I can get a sense of where we're going. At least, I'm not still ready to donate all my Browns memorabilia to charity....

...just yet-

.02,
Clemdawg

I'll always mis-trust any guy who starts every 2nd sentence with "I'll be onest"/"I don't play that games"/'"I won't lie to you" etc

When you talk about perception around the league, there’s also perception that Mike Lombardi, vice president of player personnel, is a TV guy who hasn’t worked in the league for five years and that your expertise in Philadelphia was business and contracts. Could you address that in terms of bringing in players?: “I think the people around the country and around the league that know don’t share those perceptions. So I think people in the league know that I was intimately involved in the small group of people who made the football decisions in Philadelphia that led to a lot of success. I think the people that know Mike Lombardi as it relates to his player evaluation ability would feel like it’s a good combination, that we can build a successful organization. I don’t think some free agents or the agents of the free agents are going to be telling them [anything] other than they expect Cleveland to turn around and be successful.”

What about the process of hiring Lombardi? There were reports about him for months from pretty credible people that were denied, talked around. Then all of the sudden he was magically hired: “I don’t think they were ever denied. When I was asked, I always said I wasn’t going to get into the specifics of it. So I never acknowledged or denied. My facetious [answer] is a broken clock is right twice a day. So there’s a lot of stories about which there’s a lot of speculation. Occasionally the speculation comes true. It doesn’t mean that it was fact before it became fact. Mike was always a consideration in my mind. He was one of the people I intended to talk to and interview. I knew him well. I had positive experiences with him. But until the end, he was not the guy.”

How many guys did you interview for the personnel chief position?: “I’ve told people three to five and I haven’t gotten any more specific than that.”

Fans didn’t want Lombardi. Does that concern you at all?: “As I said, I think what people ultimately want is for the team to be successful and to win games. I’d be concerned if people thought we were dishonest. I don’t think you’ll ever experience that with me. I don’t think you’ll every experience that with Jimmy. I don’t think you’ll see that in Chuds. I don’t think you’ll see that in this administration. We haven’t done that. We won’t do that. I think in the end they want us to be right even when we do something they didn’t believe in because they ultimately want to be able to watch the team on Sundays and feel good and be excited and be proud of it.”

Re-quoting to give props to the media for finally having asked the right questions. "people that know" huh? Sounds like a lot of conspiracy BS to me, what I do know is that "people in the know", actually 32 "people in the know" gave a crap about Mike Lombardi for 5 full years, although he was begging to get a NFL job again. I think I knwo who those "people in the know" are...or is. Sounds like this scene from "being John Malkovich", enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/v/lIpev8JXJHQ

In the end he gave us some insight, which is a good thing.

Until he's signed to a contract, or tagged Non-Exclusively...

There is still a chance...

To completely dismiss it is silly IMO.

Quote:

---

Is that smart from a fan perspective for a guy like Dawson?: “My attitude – and you’ll see this and sometimes it will frustrate people – is all the fans want us to do is win. So when we make decisions we think are ultimately putting us in the best position to win, that’s the best thing for everybody in the end. Whether the fans know the outcome of those two questions today or two weeks from now, I’m not sure there’s something consequential there other than they’d like to know and we understand that. In the end they want us to make the right decisions and win football games.”

---

as a fan, that's pretty frustrating but I get it. I understand that if a decision was made and it's beneficial to keep that close to the vest until it's the right time, then do it. I get it.. But yea it's frustrating to fans that just want to know.

I am thinking that there is more to Banner than I originally thought

But I believe to think the Browns will land him is even more silly.

They can draft a later round guy if they wish but I'll be very surprised if anyone beats out Weeden with a year under his belt, an offseason of film, serious practice and another training camp to his credit.

BMore aint dumping Flacco either.

Alex Smith maybe. I dont think that will happen as the cost will be high.

Well, it will be interesting to see what Baltimore does if they cannot get a deal done with Flacco by the time free agency opens.

If they give him the non-exclusive franchise tag, then they are locked out of any free agent activity, including their own free agents, because of the $14 tender that immediately hits their cap.

If they give him the exclusive franchise tag, then no one else can negotiate with Flacco, but it immediately costs them $20 million. They would have to cut players immediately to clear enough cap room to accommodate that $20 tender. They might be able to negotiate a long tern deal from there to recoup some cap room this year, but in the meanwhile they would be locked out of the free agent market. (including their own players) They will also have lost some additional players they would have to release to clear enough cap room to tender Flacco with the $20+ million tag.

Either way, they are in trouble if they cannot get Flacco under contract before free agency opens. They really need him to take a back loaded deal, with guaranteed money coming later in the deal. He may, or may not, want to do that. If he hits the market with the non-exclusive tag, and the Browns feel that he is the guy they want at QB, they could make him an offer that the Ravens would have no chance of matching. I think that Baltimore knows that. However, Baltimore is in a tough spot, because they can't afford to lose Flacco, especially to a division foe ...... but they really cannot afford the exclusive tag. (and even the non-exclusive tag would hurt) Unless they get him under contract with a deal that pushes compensation back a few years, they are going to have major problems.

Some things there I never really considered before! A real catch 22!
Thanks for the enlightenment!

A large signing bonus pro-rated over 5 years would still be a significant impact to this year's cap.

Let's say they give him a $50 million signing bonus, plus a small salary for this year ..... maybe $1 million. That would give them an $11 million cap hit this year, which is a very minimal savings.

What they need to be able to do is work with guarantees. Flacco gets a $6 million salary this year as part of a 5 years/$100 million deal. In year 2, his salary increases to $13 million, fully guaranteed, plus a reporting bonus of $2 million. In year 3, his salary increases to $20 million, fully guaranteed. Year 4 increases his salary to $27 million, with $20 fully guaranteed. His final year has a salary of $32 million, with $25 fully guaranteed.

A deal like this would allow the Ravens to maintain flexibility in years 1, 2, and maybe 3 .... and then pay/overpay in years 4 and 5. This would allow them to kick the can down the road on salary .... and would allow them to maintain the ability to keep a key free agent or 2 this year, in addition to keeping Flacco.

A large signing bonus doesn't necessarily do that for them.

That's funny.. the example I was going to give was a 5 year/$100m contract with a $50m signing bonus and $1m first year salary

I'm guessing the Flacco camp wants more than that and the Ravens are offering a little less.. pure speculation though

They are going to lose a player or 3, there's no doubt about it, but from their standpoint at least they will get some compensatory picks for their troubles. I still think the combination of no long term deal + standard franchise tag + signing an offer sheet from another team is an extremely unlikely combination of events.