|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,427 Likes: 1373
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,427 Likes: 1373 |
Quote:
just like to clear things up - possibly???
1. I do not want Mack to leave its sets a precedent that I do not wish to see over again. But if he truly does not want to be here I would rather let him go than make $ his motive to stay.
2. I mentioned Greco because it was set up to be that way...maybe just leverage in negotiations or actually a safe guard preparation to let Mack Walk.
3. I'm all for getting Mitchell Schwart's brother...let them for a right side tandem. Hopefully they like each other and this would keep both here for a long time. Assuming they make a good tandem. Then we either sign Mack, or draft high an OG or C with Greco and Pinkston to fill in where ever.
BC...what happened there? sometimes its hard to get the message across on a message board...no big deal.
I agree.
I don't want Mack to leave but if the FO thinks it's possible he doesn't want to play in Cleveland anymore....let him walk. I wouldn't want to have to vastly overpay him just to keep him in Cleveland if money is the only reason why he re-signs. If mentally he is already gone, it makes no sense and good luck to the guy in the future. Same thought process goes for any player, really. Whether the FA class of our in 2014, 2015, etc.
The Greco extension really shocked me last offseason. I did not see that coming. Of all the proactive moves we could have made long-term (like Mack, Ward, Haden) we approached Greco? It seemed off. He played well in when Pinkston went down but didn't think it was good enough to give him a FIVE year extension. One thing about the contract it is only guaranteed at $1.3M and if he doesn't start, his base salary goes down. So if Mack would stay, and/or the FO wants to upgrade the LG spot with someone else, he goes back to a very low base.
*Speculation* I think the FO believes there is a very good chance Mack walks. I'm not suggesting Mack approached the FO about it (although it could have happened) or that they even have inside information on the matter, but the move to extend Greco ( and the way his contract is set up) does screams " BACK UP PLAN" to me and others, I'm sure as it has been suggested previously.
It's smart to have something like this in place, but the question then becomes, IF Mack leaves, is Greco the adequate replacement after watching him in 2013?
Last edited by MemphisBrownie; 01/29/14 10:29 AM.
Tackles are tackles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well, it is interesting to see that we all have different opinions on these guys.
Personally, I think Mack is very good. Here is why:
--He is strong enough to handle the big NTs in the this league, including Ngata in Baltimore.
--He is extremely smart. He makes great line calls. Rarely do you see guys run in free against our OL, This is a huge asset.
--He can block on the second level. Think about that screen pass where Little gained all those yards. Mack and Joe T. were well down field paving the way.
--His durability is outstanding. As mentioned, he's never missed a game.
I think we need to keep this guy. Not sure it will happen, but he does impress me and our OL will suffer if he leaves.
On the other hand, I could care less if we let Ward walk. Very overrated. Inconsistent tackler and poor in coverage. He's okay, but I would not pay him top safety money.
Would you be OK with us Tagging a Center at whatever the figure is? 9-11M?
That's incredibly stupid for what is mostly considered the LEAST important position on any offense.
I have zero problem with sliding Greco over and getting one new quality OG via draft or FA.
No way should this Tag thing for a Center or a Guard be the average of any OL including LT's. That's just blind stupidity. And Goodell is right there attached to it. Just like a Super Bowl in NYC in February and the possible killing off of extra points.
We have the cap space and an owner who isn't afraid to spend money. Why are you acting like it's your money?
If a franchise tag or the threat of a franchise tag is enough to keep mack here, i say we do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
J/C Ytown
I have never in my life seen such nonsensical crap.
Youpeople who know nothing about oline play,that would be 99% of you,should keep your mouth shut.
Mack is a very good center.Mack is not worth thr francjhise tag.
Nothing else needs to ve said.
Evidently people don't like your advice because they are still talking about it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
Good argument. I'll address a couple of things:
--I don't really agree w/center being the least important offensive position. It's certainly more important than a FB. It's more important than your guards. It is close in importance of the RT and in some offenses, it is more important than the TE.
--I think what people forget is the importance of making line calls pre-snap. Mack is very intelligent and puts us in good situations. Our pass blocking has been good the past couple of years. People were up in arms because of the sacks, but man, that was more Weeden than anything else.
--I do understand not paying him the same money as top LT's. That's very logical on your part. It's as stupid as paying a SS the same amount of money as the top FS's in the game. I really think they should look at how they categorize these guys when it comes to franchising/tagging them. No way should a RG and LT be in the same pay category. No way should a SS be grouped w/a FS. Do they group FB's and RB's together, too?
This part isn't to you. I realize that some of you get upset when I voice my opinion on Ward, but why didn't you get upset when people were bad-mouthing Mack? Furthermore, haven't many of you voiced your positive opinion on Ward over and over? Look at Swish..........he actually gets offended if someone mentions not paying Ward big money. It's like they are related. It's all opinion, fellas. No need to stomp out opposing opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,427 Likes: 1373
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,427 Likes: 1373 |
Quote:
We have the cap space and an owner who isn't afraid to spend money. Why are you acting like it's your money?
If a franchise tag or the threat of a franchise tag is enough to keep mack here, i say we do it.
Why are people acting it's their money???
Because this is a message board for THEIR team. And people constantly opine about how they should spend cap money. It's fun to speculate and guess what they may be thinking. Plus for those people that want to the FO to use the money we have wisely ( which may be very active in FA, although this is not my avenue of thinking) this may not fall into that category.
Personally, I think it is a rather shallow thought process to believe the FO should use a franchise tag on a player just because they have the cap space, especially when it comes to a Center making LT money, even if for one year. That doesn't make any financial sense no matter how much available money exists.
Also, and this is something that scares me....Banner and Lombardi are on notice, I think. Well, at least Lombardi is. I think they have to show Haslem the Browns can win with them leading the personnel show and FA could be a way to remedy that to win now or at least show vast improvement from 2013 to 2014. So, IF that is the case, would franchising a Center at LT money make sense towards that endeavor? I don't think so. It would limit the talent level of players, and the amount of, they could pursue. Unless I am mistaken and misreading other posters' comments on this, that would be roughly 25% of available cap money in 2014. Again, I could be wrong on this, but if not, this doesn't make sense.
I think they'll try real hard to re-sign Mack long term. But don't think they should tag him at the expense of filling other holes they may want to address or other extensions (and the subsequent structuring of money) they may be thinking about.
Tackles are tackles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
yes, I also want to keep Mack, but likely not at franchise level $$. unless our FO thinks we won't use that $$ next year and we get Ward signed to a multi-year deal ahead of time. then, it's only a 1year cap-hit.
but, let's assume that Mack leaves. how much we feel the hit will depend on what our FO does next. I think Greco can play OC. I'm not sure how he'd do calling out protections as he hasn't had to do it yet. Steinbach used to call them for the OL, so we just need to get someone on the OL (preferably the interior) to be able to do it.
Next step, I see others are on the Geoff Schwartz bandwagon as well. I like him alot. He can play either OG spot and is a power guy, which we need on our OL. He isn't the most experienced guy though, so I'm not sure he'd be our protection caller. I guess we could see who between him and Greco did the best there. At that point, we could use one of our top4 picks on an OG.
in the draft:
Gabe Jackson - hey, he'd be great, but I think we'd have to spend our #26 on him if he even lasts that long. I much prefer getting QB/WR with our top2 picks, so he's likely out.
2nd rounder - OG/CB/S/ILB are the positions I would consider here. There are more OG, so we likely wait on OG until the 3rd round (especially since we do have some internal depth there though I'd like to improve on who is starting). If we do wait, then here are the guys to consider:
Martin, ND - just in case he drops, unlikely.
Yankey, Stanford - same. I think both of these guys go early 2nd.
Sua-Filo, UCLA - I really like him. He played all over the OL for UCLA and was good at run & pass blocking. He started as a freshman in 2009 (all pac-10), then went on missions for 2 years and came back to start on the OL. He's an impressive player and person and I would absolutely LOVE for him to be a Brown.
Brandon Linder, U-Miami - Steen & Tre Jackson get more pub, but Linder is the better overall blocker IMO. He has good feet and good hands. he is a power-blocker type who once he gets his hands on someone, they stay there and he drives well. it seemed like the Canes had Duke run behind him anytime they needed a good run. He would be a RG in the NFL (though he played both RG & RT for the Canes). He needs to improve on his initial step, he was a bit slow with it at times and he relied on his strength too much.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26 |
Quote:
Quote:
We have the cap space and an owner who isn't afraid to spend money. Why are you acting like it's your money?
If a franchise tag or the threat of a franchise tag is enough to keep mack here, i say we do it.
Why are people acting it's their money???
Because this is a message board for THEIR team. And people constantly opine about how they should spend cap money. It's fun to speculate and guess what they may be thinking. Plus for those people that want to the FO to use the money we have wisely ( which may be very active in FA, although this is not my avenue of thinking) this may not fall into that category.
Personally, I think it is a rather shallow thought process to believe the FO should use a franchise tag on a player just because they have the cap space, especially when it comes to a Center making LT money, even if for one year. That doesn't make any financial sense no matter how much available money exists.
Also, and this is something that scares me....Banner and Lombardi are on notice, I think. Well, at least Lombardi is. I think they have to show Haslem the Browns can win with them leading the personnel show and FA could be a way to remedy that to win now or at least show vast improvement from 2013 to 2014. So, IF that is the case, would franchising a Center at LT money make sense towards that endeavor? I don't think so. It would limit the talent level of players, and the amount of, they could pursue. Unless I am mistaken and misreading other posters' comments on this, that would be roughly 25% of available cap money in 2014. Again, I could be wrong on this, but if not, this doesn't make sense.
I think they'll try real hard to re-sign Mack long term. But don't think they should tag him at the expense of filling other holes they may want to address or other extensions (and the subsequent structuring of money) they may be thinking about.
Because we've been using our Cap so wisely in recent years. 
By wisely I mean not using it at all. The last time I remember being even close to the cap was with Butch Davis. 
Let's worry about the cap when we're good and up against it, not when we're terrible and have tons of it. Just keep him here, he's going to require probably an 8 mil a year deal, what's 2 mil more for one year?
Literally splitting hairs for a franchise that has a desperate need for good players. If we can't sign him, we tag him or threaten him with a tag. Letting him walk because of cap or money concerns would upset me greatly when we have so much to spend and have been so far under the cap for these years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
Nice, informative posts. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,490 Likes: 728 |
Like how you use to get offended when people bad mouthed Mangini? Or this current FO?
Or how you got all pissed when me and CHS respectfully disagreed about college prospects and the importance or route running?
Might wanna make sure you're straight before you accuse others.
Last edited by Swish; 01/29/14 11:22 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have the cap space and an owner who isn't afraid to spend money. Why are you acting like it's your money?
If a franchise tag or the threat of a franchise tag is enough to keep mack here, i say we do it.
Why are people acting it's their money???
Because this is a message board for THEIR team. And people constantly opine about how they should spend cap money. It's fun to speculate and guess what they may be thinking. Plus for those people that want to the FO to use the money we have wisely ( which may be very active in FA, although this is not my avenue of thinking) this may not fall into that category.
Personally, I think it is a rather shallow thought process to believe the FO should use a franchise tag on a player just because they have the cap space, especially when it comes to a Center making LT money, even if for one year. That doesn't make any financial sense no matter how much available money exists.
Also, and this is something that scares me....Banner and Lombardi are on notice, I think. Well, at least Lombardi is. I think they have to show Haslem the Browns can win with them leading the personnel show and FA could be a way to remedy that to win now or at least show vast improvement from 2013 to 2014. So, IF that is the case, would franchising a Center at LT money make sense towards that endeavor? I don't think so. It would limit the talent level of players, and the amount of, they could pursue. Unless I am mistaken and misreading other posters' comments on this, that would be roughly 25% of available cap money in 2014. Again, I could be wrong on this, but if not, this doesn't make sense.
I think they'll try real hard to re-sign Mack long term. But don't think they should tag him at the expense of filling other holes they may want to address or other extensions (and the subsequent structuring of money) they may be thinking about.
Because we've been using our Cap so wisely in recent years.
By wisely I mean not using it at all. The last time I remember being even close to the cap was with Butch Davis.
Let's worry about the cap when we're good and up against it, not when we're terrible and have tons of it. Just keep him here, he's going to require probably an 8 mil a year deal, what's 2 mil more for one year?
Literally splitting hairs for a franchise that has a desperate need for good players. If we can't sign him, we tag him or threaten him with a tag. Letting him walk because of cap or money concerns would upset me greatly when we have so much to spend and have been so far under the cap for these years.
This.....to a tee.
My god people, we franchised a KICKER the last couple of years. Mack is a good centre and we have a buttload of cap space. The tag should at least be used as an option as we evaluate who we wanna go after.
I'm all for keeping Mack unless there's a better deal out there. He's lauded as an excellent center so why are we in such a rush to axe him? Offer a nice big fat deal- he's worth it. If he's determined to play the market, take a look at where else you want to spend dollars and figure out whether hes' worth the bigger hit for a year.
Our FO is not completely stupid. They're not going to let him walk just for the fun of it. Problem is that we aren;t privy to their plans and know who their targets are. This makes a big difference on what kind of deals we offer to our current players.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
IMO we have enough spots that need upgrading without creating another at center. Pay him or franchise him, but keep him here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,427 Likes: 1373
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,427 Likes: 1373 |
Quote:
Because we've been using our Cap so wisely in recent years.
By wisely I mean not using it at all. The last time I remember being even close to the cap was with Butch Davis.
Let's worry about the cap when we're good and up against it, not when we're terrible and have tons of it. Just keep him here, he's going to require probably an 8 mil a year deal, what's 2 mil more for one year?
Literally splitting hairs for a franchise that has a desperate need for good players. If we can't sign him, we tag him or threaten him with a tag. Letting him walk because of cap or money concerns would upset me greatly when we have so much to spend and have been so far under the cap for these years.
Only worrying about the cap when we are close to it seems short-sided. When we have a good amount of it, use it wisely, and I think we have the last couple of seasons. Tagging Mack is not using it wisely. Your philosophy seems to be spend it just because we have it. I don't agree. I feel we have positioned ourselves to be in a great spot to make sound, educated decisions on signing our own guys long-term WHILE signing select FA to significant contracts.
I say we continue to spend the money on long-term deals with players we want to keep this year, but also being in a position to extend potential Browns' free agents we want who can test the market in 2015. We do have the cap space to structure some of that money now to help us out in the future. Plus if we need to add a piece or two externally in the market, then money exists there too. I think tagging Mack would be a bad idea for my scenario. But then again, it's only my scenario.
-Butch Davis was close against the cap and we paid for it dearly. We cut tons of people (thus tons of dead money) the following year and had next to nothing in terms of talent and were hamstrung on who we could sign....plus we drafted horribly and never had anyone worth keeping to begin with.
- Phil Savage also put us in cap hell and, although I don't like him, Mangini walked into a pretty bad situation cap-wise. Good thing for him he had little talent to justify spending significants amounts of money.
But you know what, if Mack and Ward are the only thing on the FO "To-Do" list, then fine tag Mack, get Ward, sign a couple depth guys in FA, allocate $$ to early round draft picks, and continue absorb escalating contracts of our own guys. Then bare down for the 2015 free agent class of the Cleveland Browns, because again, there are more decisions to be made in this class than the group set for the market this March. And this class of 2015 is also a reason why ONLY worrying about the cap when we reach it is short-sided.
There are many other decision that need to be talked about now that effect the cap in the future like the contracts of Haden, Taylor, Cameron, Sheard, Gipson, Hoyer (for all those that like him long term), Dion Lewis, Ahtyba Rubin, Buster Skrine.
But hey, let's go crazy in 2014, get near the cap and then ONLY worry about what moves to make with some of our own guys in 2015. If we're close, heck, we can cut players, make some financial progress getting under the cap while absorbing dead money. Then, we may only be able to re-sign a portion of the players we really wanted to while having little presence in the overall FA market.
I understand why some people want to spend the money because we've had the money to do it in recent years and we've opted to, for the most part, remain quiet in FA and to some extent silent with our own guys. I think last year was the first year since Savage we actually spent a ton of money in the market.
The difference is (IMO) we have much tougher decisions with players on our roster than ever before. Since DQ was drafted in 2006, what players were worthy or justified long term deals.....Joe Thomas, DQ, Cribbs, Rubin, Dawson (HA)? Five guys actually worth in the past EIGHT years? If we had zilch talent, than I'd be more likely to agree with what you are saying. However, I think the talent pool with our own team changes the game and puts us in a situation the Browns have never been in. And I think this position behooves the FO to spend $$ wisely with several extensions of players who'd be free agents this March AND next March. For example, take Kruger's contract..... The FO was able to structure his deal so that an extra $6.3M to total $20M dead money was absorbed in 2013, thus allowing the cap hit of the remaining years equal throughout and the dead money diminishing from $20M-to-$11M-to just $3M in three years. I think that was a great idea and should be a theme signing FA in 2014 AND 2015 when the money is available now. Allocatiing 25% of 2014 cap space to makes that exponentially difficult--at least in my preferred scenario to the upcoming FA. Adding more guaranteed/dead money to the 2014 cap for several long term deals early in the contract life seems like a more financially sound approach. Banner did it with Kruger AND Desmond Bryant. I would expect him to package deals similar to this....why not take advantage of 2014 cap space to do just that?
Plus coupling in the trajectory of some of the 2015 free agents' stock, if the FO thinks they're gonna take up less money now than in a year from now, it also makes sense to lock those up with 2014 cap space.
In summation, there are tons of long term ramification to the money available now. I would not play the waiting game and worry about a problem only when it comes upon us.
Last edited by MemphisBrownie; 01/29/14 12:25 PM.
Tackles are tackles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 Likes: 136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 Likes: 136 |
I don't think the issue at all is about Cap Space n keeping him here.
I don't think Banner even would think about Franchising Mack...no way he signs a long term contract if we do that he'll run to that tender and sign it...next year he gets a 20% raise on it.
But Banner will not jeopardize future negotiations - Lets say Shwartz improves and is looking for his 2nd contract in a couple of seasons. His agent will start with - Well you paid Mack X amount of $$$ what is Schwartz then worth. Especially his background as a master bean counter against the cap. I just don't see that as a feasible option. Has nothing to do with wanting him here or not...as mentioned I really hope he stays. Just trying to anticipate the FO thought process.
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
I think we should tag Mack if only that means we keep him for one more season. Keep your best players for as long as possible. If that means one more season then so be it. If he is on another team you have no chance of convincing him to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
Mangini? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950 |
Quote:
I think we should tag Mack if only that means we keep him for one more season. Keep your best players for as long as possible. If that means one more season then so be it. If he is on another team you have no chance of convincing him to stay.
Bingo 100% agreed, keeping him for another year might convince him to sign a long term deal, but it must be fair for both him and the Browns, we cant tie up Millions of $$$$ on two postions on the line, there still are three other players we need to upgrade at some point.
But common guys we tagged Dawson a kicker, we tagged a kicker for what 2-3 years, yes I know kickers make less and Dawson well he was one of the best but common we tagged a kicker we can tag a Center for a year or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Literally splitting hairs for a franchise that has a desperate need for good players.
We also have a desperate need to improve our reputation to one of a stable and winning organization... allowing good players to walk isn't going to help us do that. If we want FA in the near future to consider coming here (without grossly overpaying for them) then we need to show improvement on the field and stability as an organization... taking the hard line with your better players isn't going to help.
It is definitely a balancing act that Banner/Lombardi are going to have to walk and walk well over the next couple years since we finally have players that other teams might actually want...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
Quote:
since we finally have players that other teams might actually want...
What are you talking about? The Broncos have always wanted our players.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,946 Likes: 70
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,946 Likes: 70 |
Quote:
...put us in cap hell ...
I don't believe Banner will allow that to happen if what he said about "sustainability" is factual. This is where, apparently, his strength lies and where his major impact will particularly be felt.
I agree with Memphis in that future planning is essential for the long term success. The 2014 cap is projected to be 126.3 million, but I'm not sure about the minimum. I don't want to lose either Mack or Ward, but if it is going to negatively affect our financial plans, then goodbye...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
It would take a lot to screw up our current cap situation. We don't even have to pay a QB for at least five more years (unless we trade for an established NFL player before then).
While Ward and Mack will demand expensive contracts there is no reason to think we can't retain them. Other teams retain their elite players all the time AND they are paying their QBs $20 million a season.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,946 Likes: 70
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,946 Likes: 70 |
Quote:
...there is no reason to think we can't retain them.
As I stated above, I would much prefer to keep them, and I believe we can knowing the cap space we currenttly enjoy. But you do have to be careful in maintaining a balance...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,467 Likes: 70
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,467 Likes: 70 |
I think we're currently 42M under the cap (or will be once we cut Weeden and Campbell - which I think is inevitable). http://bleacherreport.com/articles/18908...ial-re-signingsI think there is plenty of money to resign Mack and Ward - and then also grab another top FA, without being anywhere close to the cap numbers. Even if we go over the actual cap by a bit (by using rollover money) - there is $7M in dead money on the cap in 2014 which will come off the books in 2015 (mostly to Richardson).
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 01/29/14 01:45 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I would bring back both if we could.
Mack is gone. Going to have to tag him.
We'll see how it plays out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
It would take a lot to screw up our current cap situation.
We're just lucky that coaches don't count against the cap.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Quote:
It would take a lot to screw up our current cap situation.
We're just lucky that coaches don't count against the cap.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 835 Likes: 5
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 835 Likes: 5 |
Quote:
I wanna see Lombardi, Jimmy and Banner all fight over that ham sandwich! Throw it to the floor and may the best man win, ha ha ha...
At least two of them would want trade the ham sandwich away for bologna on hand. 
Einstein could not even fathom the mathematical improbabilities of the Browns woes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,467 Likes: 70
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,467 Likes: 70 |
Quote:
I would bring back both if we could.
Mack is gone. Going to have to tag him.
We'll see how it plays out.
Has Mack ever said he was gone? Not sure why people are so sure of this?
Only thing he's said for sure, is that he would "Absolutely" give the team the right to match any offer if he hit the free agent market.
Pro Bowl center Alex Mack wants to return to the Browns, and will give the team right of first refusal if he hits the free agent market.
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2013/12/pro_bowl_center_alex_mack_will.html
"Asked if he'd give the Browns the chance to match or exceed any offer he receives in free agency, Mack said "Oh, absolutely.'''
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 01/29/14 03:07 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
I think people are assuming things have changed since Chud got canned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,467 Likes: 70
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,467 Likes: 70 |
So Ryan Kalil's deal was 6 year $49M with $19M guaranteed. Or about $8M/year.
Given that Mack would probably demand a bit more than that (say 6 year $52M, $21M guaranteed) - franchising at $9M only seems like it's costing an extra $1-2M. It's more than you want to spend, but it's not crazy.
This is especially true if we think Mack's only problem is a new coaching staff (which he may adjust to over the year).
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
I think we're currently 42M under the cap (or will be once we cut Weeden and Campbell - which I think is inevitable).
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/18908...ial-re-signings
I think there is plenty of money to resign Mack and Ward - and then also grab another top FA, without being anywhere close to the cap numbers. Even if we go over the actual cap by a bit (by using rollover money) - there is $7M in dead money on the cap in 2014 which will come off the books in 2015 (mostly to Richardson).
Weedens dead money doesn't help. Makes more sense to cut Greg Little.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
Weeden costs us about $2 million to keep, or $4 million to cut when guarantees are taken into account.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,163 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,163 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think we're currently 42M under the cap (or will be once we cut Weeden and Campbell - which I think is inevitable).
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/18908...ial-re-signings
I think there is plenty of money to resign Mack and Ward - and then also grab another top FA, without being anywhere close to the cap numbers. Even if we go over the actual cap by a bit (by using rollover money) - there is $7M in dead money on the cap in 2014 which will come off the books in 2015 (mostly to Richardson).
Weedens dead money doesn't help. Makes more sense to cut Greg Little.
I bet they don't cut Little. Just a hunch..
#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: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Has Mack ever said he was gone? Not sure why people are so sure of this?
Mack is a friend of Michael SIlver's, and has long been a source for him when it comes to all things Browns.
Many - myself included - are fairly confident that Mack was one of the 'veteran players' ripping the organization after the Chud firing.
I for one would be absolutely shocked if he wasn't.
I can't say one way or the other if he will come back or not. He's been here long enough to develop roots and settle down. That can be hard to walk away from. Not to mention, we've all had employers we were upset with or thought were jokes...doesn't mean we plan to walk away.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,978 Likes: 116
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,978 Likes: 116 |
Quote:
Just trying to anticipate the FO thought process.
It's goes something like this....
Moe: The treasure, we found it!
Larry: Now Jimmy can get his operation!
Curly: There's enough here for all of us to have an operation!
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.
– Jackie Robinson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,689 Likes: 387
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,689 Likes: 387 |
Quote:
I can't say one way or the other if he will come back or not. He's been here long enough to develop roots and settle down. That can be hard to walk away from. Not to mention, we've all had employers we were upset with or thought were jokes...doesn't mean we plan to walk away.
While I understand your sentiment most of us don't have the financial freedom to pay others to pack our stuff to move. Then unpack on the otherside. Or an agent to help with a new home purchase on the other side. Nor 31 other employers that would gladly pay us very very well to uproot ourselves. Most of us when we realize our employers are a joke have to stay out of lack of choices or need to keep the lights on. Mack's situation is different I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 15
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 15 |
Quote:
It would take a lot to screw up our current cap situation. We don't even have to pay a QB for at least five more years (unless we trade for an established NFL player before then).
While Ward and Mack will demand expensive contracts there is no reason to think we can't retain them. Other teams retain their elite players all the time AND they are paying their QBs $20 million a season.
I'm assuming you never had to deal with 5 or 10 year projection staffing budget. Any company who hires predominantly at the low end. Assumes employees develop and move up the ladder. One of the biggest obstacles is satisfying compensation preventing talent from walking away while controlling cost. Being the Browns players are young logic states many second contracts will occur roughly at the same time. What once seems like a large cap will rapidly shrink.
As an employee you can out perform yourself out of a job. It is all about ROI. If Browns HR/Scouting department is worth anything, you can bet they take full advantage of that first rookie contract whenever possible. I always thought the players really screwed themselves with that last CBA. Star players will get coin, but grunts will constantly be expendable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
Quote:
Star players will get coin, but grunts will constantly be expendable.
Neither of the guys we are talking about are grunts. They are both All-Pro caliber players.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 15
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 15 |
Quote:
Quote:
Star players will get coin, but grunts will constantly be expendable.
Neither of the guys we are talking about are grunts. They are both All-Pro caliber players.
Let me rephrase. Your non billboard players will be expendable. Your flashy ESPN highlight reel play makers will collect most of the cash. I understand Mack is a all-pro, but you draft a new center halfway through the season no one will remember Mack. A center does not show up in the stat column. Thus, my point, if Browns scouting staff is worth anything, you can see a lot of turnover at some positions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,946 Likes: 70
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,946 Likes: 70 |
Quote:
One of the biggest obstacles is satisfying compensation preventing talent from walking away while controlling cost.
Agreed, bugs. That is, in part, what I was referring to earlier about maintaining balance...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
You guys give me a headache w/your constant spin and fabrications.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum OUR pending free agents . . .
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)