DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Heckert Joins Broncos as Personnel Executive

Do you ever make a post w/out including me? It's like some sort of sick fixation.

So, you guys are telling me that records are not important? It's all about how good your roster looks?

And I find it ironic that you brag about our roster in this post, but yet you constantly bashed the new FO for not fixing all the holes in the roster during free agency. Me thinks you speak out of both sides of your mouth----------as well as other places.

Then, you say that Seattle was the exception. Well:

--The Bengals had 4 wins in both 2008 and 2010. They are now a playoff team.

--SF had 7 wins in 2008 and 6 in 2010. Most think they have the best team in the league right now.

--Seattle had the very same records as the Browns in 2008 and 2009. People used to make fun of them and use them as a comparison of how much better H and H were.

--Washington won 5 games in 2009,6 in 2010 and 5 in 2011. They made the playoffs last year and have a great young qb.

--Green Bay won 6 games in 2008 and won the Super Bowl a few years later.

--Houston won 6 games in 2010 and have been very good since.

--The Vikings won 6 games in 2010 and 3 in 2011. They made the playoffs last year.

--Indy went from winning 2 games in 2011 to 11 in 2012.

Sorry guys, but you need to win in the NFL. Other teams turned it around quicker. Heckert's teams didn't win. He's gone.

I've been wrong before, but I thought he was responding to Django.....

Quote:

---

He bombed in FA.

---

Vers...difficult for you to understand because of your "agenda"...

...but, if the goal is to build your team "via the draft", you might not be very active in the FA market.

...also, the 2009 Browns roster inherited by Heckert and Holmgren was loaded with over 50% of the roster being FAs...

The whole idea of building your team "via the draft" is to get away from a roster dominated by free agents.

Just trying to educate you a bit on "rebuilding via the draft" ...

Maybe now you can understand why Heckert was not so active in the free agent market...it was intentional.

Something else...teams doing a complete tear down and rebuilding "via the draft" don't win much in their first 3 yrs of rebuilding...especially when those rebuilding start out with a roster like the Browns 2009 roster.

In the 7 seasons prior to the start of Holmgren and Heckert's 5 yr rebuilding plan, started in 2010...the Browns averaged 5.4 wins per season...and the roster was loaded with overpaid, under performing, older free agents.

The Steelers rebuild started in 1969 produced a 12-30 record, a winning percentage of .286, in the first 3 yrs.

The Browns rebuild started in 2010 produced a 14-34 record, a winning percentage of .291, in the first 3 yrs.

In the 7 seasons prior to starting their rebuilding plan in 1969, the Steelers average 4.86 wins per season.

Poorly performing teams that begin a plan to rebuild their roster "via the draft", don't win many games in the first 3 seasons. That is one of the major reasons NFL teams rarely commit to plan to rebuild their "roster via the draft".

Quote:

---

And since you brought up the Super Bowl appearance to suggest that the roster wasn't really all that bad, how many players do you think remain from that Super Bowl team? I will give you a hint.. it is less than 1.

---

hasu...you are 100% wrong !

You didn't look it up, did you?...

There were several players from the Super Bowl team that were on the 2010 roster that Carroll inherited.

If you want to find out what the talent level of the roster Pete Carroll took over was, look up the 2009 roster and compare it to the 2007 roster, which was the last time the Seahawks made the playoffs.

I'm confident saying Carroll took over a much better roster than Holmgren and Heckert took over in 2010.

In the 7 seasons prior to Carroll taking over, the Seahawks average 8.6 wins per year. The Browns averaged 5.4 wins per year, if we go back 7 seasons prior to Holmgren and Heckert taking over.

The Seahawks were just 2 yrs removed from the playoffs when Pete Carroll took over...the Browns were 8 yrs removed from their only playoff appearance since 1999.

I was fixation thing was about Dj. You don't follow me around like he does.

Of course, the roster is important. I wasn't ignoring that. On the other hand, you simply cannot discount the won/loss record.

The roster has some talent. All of Pro Bowl players were drafted before Heckert got here. He did draft some young, talented guys, but when you look at our overall roster---you see holes in many places. I watch the games and I see our opponents w/better players than ours.

You may not agree w/that--and that is fine--but I am of the opinion that our record is very similar to our talent level. Better coaching should help some, but I think this team is still lacking in overall talent.

Vers I'm not the best at this search stuff. Thought it was common knowledge n read it several times. My son has Bing (I liked Google) and no matter what I put down it shows Heckert being hired by Denver stories nothing about the Chiefs.

Is it really that important anyways. I don't see it changing any of my points regarding Heckert. Ok he wasn't offered the Chiefs job. Doesn't really change anything for me that is. Maybe you n some stuff you got with some other posters. No big deal. As stated - I will always thank Heckert for putting us in this position FINALLY to build on. Pretty much it in a nut shell. I've accepted the new guys...I like the plan!

Diam... Actually expressed my opinion better than I could. Pretty much the same way with me. Thank you Tom - my biggest disappointment was Shurmur a big mistake. But I will always thank him for the drafted foundation!

JMHO

Gotcha... like I said, the "you guys" threw me off.

Of course record matters, I just saw it being used repeatedly as a stand-alone metric of stating how a GM did his job, and it bugged me because you just can't do that. It doesn't even come close to telling the story. A coach gets measured by the record... the GM gets measured by the manner in which you got to that record.


As for our roster.... I'm honestly not even sure what the heck I see on it anymore. I know that there is a lot of promise and potential, and I know that I'm pretty darn certain that we most definitely underachieved the last year or two. I have no idea how much was Shurmur, how much was Holmgren, how much was us being stuck in neutral with "WestCoast 101", or how much was Weeden not being the right fit for the WCO. I see holes that the last FO never addressed, and I see holes that this FO has bypassed and others that they've created. I saw enough of Heckert to like what he was doing. I didn't think he was perfect by any means, but so far I'd take him in a heartbeat over Lombardi. That is an experiment I wanted, and still want, no part of. Unfortunately, I don't get a say in that.

I think the main reason we don't take win/loss into account is because of the Shurmer effect. Honestly, that guy was brutal.

Obviously, it would be much more convenient to use that stat as a barometer for the talent on this team, but you can't sit there and tell me that Shurmer coaching this team didn't influence that stat. Since we're only looking at the job Heckert did, you have to try to take out Shurmer's influence on the results.