DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Bradford Would Not Sign Extension w/Browns

There is a common theme among the pro FO crowd for sure there is:

If the FO makes a deal it was great and if a player turns their back on us and walks he wasn't that good and we don't want him here if he doesn't want to be here anyway.

I would have loved to have gotten Bradford, a healthy Bradford moves this team from pretender to contender overnight. We would have gone from the bottom of our division to near or at the top. Why wouldn't you do that deal?

Last year we took a flyer on JF and before him Weedon and before him BQ, and I would do it ALL over again because for certain you have to keep trying or you will for ever be at the bottom of the league. Make no mistake Bradford when healthy is the kind of QB that takes this team to the next level. Granted he didn't do that for the Rams but outside of Bradford they had nothing.

Bradford to be sure is a high risk deal but he also is a high reward deal as well I would have given it a go and not looked back.

I actually agree with the price we were reported to have offered and I would have insisted on an extended deal as well that was tied to him remaining healthy, But I actually have praise for the FO on this deal I wished we had been able to pull it off because Bradford is a top shelf QB.

I strongly suspect the Bradford haters would be licking their lips and salivating over what would have been possible for this team with a healthy Bradford on board. The fact that Bradford wanted nothing to do with the Browns is a reflection of the dysfunction biting us in the ass, but in this instance I think the FO handled it just right.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.. but didn't Bradford also state this past year that he did not want to extend with the Rams. It seems as though one of the reasons Bradford was traded was there had been no success in extension talks. Could the Rams possibly have been trying to get the most they could out of the situation before they were stuck holding the bag, hence the reason for requiring a QB in addition to a draft pick?

Has Bradford extended with the Eagles yet? Could it be that he wants to be a total Free Agent and not be locked in anywhere except for the place of his choice? That is, if the place of his choice wants him, after all, not many teams are in the market for a QB who has played 2 full seasons out of 5 and 7 games out of the past 2 seasons.

His rookie deal was the last of it's kind and is a major example of why the rookie contracts were changed. Bradford may not wish to extend anywhere and decide to retire after his contract expires. Time will tell...

That's why

No matter how long we suffer because we don't have a QB there will always be those that don't get that in order to have a top flight QB you have to be willing to take a chance, and do it again and again until you hit pay dirt. It's the nature of the beast. Believe me I know the cost of giving up something and not getting anything in return but the alternative is being who the Browns are, losers.

So IMO you do the deal and cross your fingers just like we did when we drafted JF last year. In many respects Bradford is a risk and so are 1st round picks in general when it comes to QB's, Bradford is the real deal when he is healthy, I take a chance because not having him means the same thing as having him and him not being healthy, LOSING.

What is it we have to lose with him we may win without him we are sure to lose. I make the deal and roll the dice.

There is only one problem with that theory. Eventually you'll run out of assets. If you waste assets on high risk gambles, you won't have them when you really need them.

The only way to somewhat combat the lack of a QB is stability and continuity. That's it. That's the only way. At some point you'll hit on that QB and when you do, they'll get inserted into a stable situation.

I hate to say it, but we need to model ourselves after the Benglas. They make the playoffs every year with a bottom 16 QB. But they have stability and continuity. If by some stroke of luck they are able to get a QB, they'll be contending for Super Bowls for many years.

The fans in Cleveland will never allow this to happen, though.

Not as long as they have a draft every year. Besides the alternative is losing. But maintain your own comfort level I suppose. Me I go for broke knowing the alternative doesn't offer a better solution. LOSING

And no thanks to being the Bengals as well, winning is one thing always coming up short sucks too. I saw the same act here in Cleveland and eventually the fans will push for a change to see if another coach can get the team over the hump. Fortunately for Lewis the fans in Cincy haven't gotten mad enough yet but the will.

Nothing wrong with your reasoning.. its just risk vs. reward... imo the risk is too high.. in your's the reward out weighs the risk.

4 straight trips the playoffs sounds better than 10 of 11 double digit losing seasons to me.

But that's just the surface stuff. The Bengals are poised to become great if they can find a QB. You insert a QB into that situation and they will be contending for a Super Bowl.

Do you think a guy like Sanu would play well in Cleveland? Hell no. He's just barely above a dime a dozen player. He's thriving in Cincy because he got inserted into a stable environment that has allowed him to grow and develop. You can say that about a lot of Cincy's players.

Your response is Exhibit A to my statement "The fans will never allow that to happen."

Have you looked at the Bengals record from 1991 - 2002 ? 11 0f 12 losing seasons with the odd year being 8 - 8, and they had other losing years in the 2000s. I live in southern Ohio, and only recently have the Bengals developed a little swagger.

Marvin Lewis did instill stability in Cincy and they have begun to prosper. Bengals fans are like fans everywhere.. they wanted Brown to sell the team.. wanted to change QBs.. etc .. etc but finally they found a QB in Palmer.. then lucked into Dalton when Palmer refused to come back.. btw.. Palmer refused to come back to Cincy because he was fed up with the team and constantly losing...

I think it is funny that we are made to look like fools because Bradford said he would not have signed an extension, yet Fisher states that no deal was considered because thay wanted a QB in the trade.

So the facts are that Bradford never had a chance to diss the Browns, but it is a fun thing to print the speculation of what would of happened.

Those claiming it was dysfunction that made this happen are also speculating.Bradford has talent that never produced anything for the Rams. He is hurt every year, and when playing does little to help the team.

So once again the Browns are made to look bad by something that never happened, and the FO bashers get to stand on their soapbox and demean anyone who doesn't agree with the premise.

I would also like to add, that all those who are in love with Kelly, would have crapped the bed if he made the moves he made for Philly if that was our team. He has traded big name players for players many have never heard of. Browns fans would have been crucifying the guy.

If I was a player, and Cleveland wanted to sign me, my fear wouldn't be the FO, it would be the fanbase that I would fear. In this town, if you are not an instant superstar, you are a bum.

not only that, we would be stating how absolutely dysfunctional it is that the head coach is orchestrating moves, and not the GM...

yeah what if Farmer traded for a QB coming off two knee surgeries and then traded someone the quality of McCoy for a defensive player also coming off the IR... the bashers would have come unglued.

I would never say the Bengals lucked into Dalton. He's not very good. He came into a very stable situation, and despite cries from the fans, the organization has stood behind him and let him develop. I was hoping we would do something similar with Hoyer. For once, it would have been nice to stand behind a guy, let him make mistakes, and grow and develop into a player. I don't want to hear the age thing with Hoyer since he really never played. How can anyone say he's a finished product? Just the fans that want instant gratification and to a previous poster's point, if you ain't Pro Bowl year 1, you're a bum. It's so silly. The problem with the Browns is staring everyone in the face, fans and media alike, yet the fans and the media want constant change all the time. Microwave society.

I'm not saying the Bengals have been perfect over the years, but they are being rewarded now for staying the course. Would I be pissed to constantly come up short in the playoffs? Hell yes. But after being on this other side, I'd probably develop an appreciation for the above average finish on what is becoming an annual basis. I would definitely be hoping to replace Dalton as well. But I would be happy there was a sense of stability in the organization.

I just don't know how this team is going to move forward and achieve without stability. The constant change is holding the Browns back. I recognize it's a fine line between staying the course for stability and judging whether those you are staying the course with can get the job done. But in today's NFL, you can't measure a coach and FO without having a QB in place. It's too hard. Wins are too dependent on a QB. The next best course of action is maintain some continuity with coaches, schemes, etc., and continue to build the team around the QB position until you can insert a guy in there.

There is only one exception to this, and that would be something similar to what happened to the Colts. Does anyone think Pagano is a good coach? Or is he a fortunate one? His first year he gets to draft the best prospect since Manning. People probably think he's a good coach. He's likely no better than anyone else. He just has a QB.

What might happen with the Browns at some point could be similar. We could change coaches and FO the same year we are dead last and get to draft the next great QB. Everyone will think we finally hit on our coach and the previous guys were all bums. The truth is that coach will just have gotten lucky with his timing. That's all.

Get some continuity and stability, get to average to above average play, and be ready to insert the QB when you have the chance to get him. That's the only way to respectability for this franchise outside of having a Luck fall into our laps.

The fact is Kelly was of the opinion that 10-6 was the best he was going to get from the players he had and in his mind that wasn't good enough. He wants championships and he is willing to take the risks that are involved to attempt to get there, unlike the Bengals.

I wasn't crucifying the FO I was actually praising them for trying to be bold. I think their dysfunction to date has been a huge negative in attracting and retaining both players and coaches, none the less I applaud their attempt at landing a player of Bradford's caliber and it tells me they at the minimum understand that they need to be aggressive and proactive in getting a QB in here that can actually get this team onto the next level.

The next step is actually getting a deal done. I don't know that I would go all in to get either of the QB's in this draft but I sure would have made a play for Bradford I think he is special, if he could only stay healthy. I think Kelly did great in FA and improving the talent on the Eagles but he sure did take some chances with oft injured players and he could get burned but why sit still with what you have when you believe they are all they can be and you'll always end up falling short. Champions are bold and aggressive, losers are to scared to risk more losing and end up losing.

I hate to say it but you guys are trying to protect losing instead of daring to make the moves that could get you out of losing, and worst yet you don't see it... What is it we would be risking oh yeah 7-9. You guys set your sights to high for sure protecting 7-9 thats what this is down too.

Protect something worth protecting fella's 7-9 isn't it, is it?

Fixed it for you.

Oh, and you forgot one important fact when you were criticizing Kelly. His teams have won 11 games two years in a row. Yeah, us Browns fans would just absolutely hate that.

This will be the first year he is the sole voice in personnel too.

He might have gone off the deep end. He's either going to be a genius or a dope.

To BTTB's point, I do like his aggression and not settling for good enough. You still have to be smart about things, though. It's easy to be haphazard on a message board. It doesn't work like that in real life.

The tact you are talking about has been tried here for like 15 years I would say its time to be bold cause whatever has been being done isn't even close to being good enough.

1- Steady hand in the form of ownership

2- Solid GM that knows how to evaluate and land talent. (art of the deal)

3- Good coaching

4-A Franchise QB

5- A franchise QB

6- A Franchise QB

And to that end you have to pull out all the stops and you can't be scared, scared means you lose for another 15 years. Its long past the time to be bold and brave, yes dot the i's and cross the t's, and be bold.

The bold I believe we are about to get is a wasted season but that can be aggressive and bold too if you get your guy. The biggy though is identify what you want then pull out all stops to get it, you may come out looking like a fool but you may come out looking like a saint, but for sure you CANNOT be scared, scared gets you more of the same.

I think you have a point to an extent. But I still think you have to be smart about it. What price was too much for Bradford? One first? Two? Future firsts? Sign him to another $50m contract so he'll extend?

I think you're right that we have to be aggressive. I just think if you're not careful, you could be too aggressive which may be worse in the long run.

i haven't fully agreed with most of your statements in other posts, but when it comes to getting a QB this is where I agree with you 100%.

If Bradford would've came here for a 1st or a 2nd, wouldve been fine with me. We would still had the other picks to fill the other spots and I would've taken the chance. He bomb or gets injured. oh well....try again next year. If he doesn't...awesome we have a QB.

If we would or wouldve traded for Rivers or Brees,for a first or second or third... awesome. We still have our other picks to fill spots. And in the coming years, spend a mid pick to groom for when they retire.

If we have a chance at 12 or 19 for Mariotta (IF they think he has the skills) then draft him...same deal about picks. Or a round later to get Petty then do it.

Keep Manziel see I how he reacts, but don't count on him to do anything, but if he does show promise...it's a plus.

If they don't work out well...next year Cook comes out, possibly Cardale, and whoever else. We also "should" have extra picks through compensation. So either we will be in position to grab one or will have to trade up.

If we aren't in position to get a QB this year either through draft or trade, if someone comes calling I would still like to trade one of our 1st's this year for a future 1st next year.

Like you said, don't be scared keep trying one will have to workout sooner or later.

So I'm an apologist? gmafb I wasn't criticizing Kelly, I was pointing out that the fans here would not have agreed with the moves he made like getting rid of McCoy. But read it the way you want. I'm just surprised you didn't mention something about "regime wars" in your reply.

The upside is that an article about the Browns dysfunction gets 10 times more hits than an article that says the sky isn't really falling.... it's pretty simple.

That's news in a nutshell. Man, we're a depressing species.

LOL..............but it's the guys who question the FO who are demeaning.

DC---------the sky isn't falling? When was the last time we won a playoff game? How about a winning record? Made the playoffs? Won the Super Bowl? Displayed continuity? Had more positive reports than negative reports?

The sky fell a long time ago, bro.

we know that. But you've been acting like the sky just started falling.

we know its bad. we got it. we understand.

And we know that so many of you guys ONLY want to hear positives and demean anyone who questions what Farmer and Haslam has done.

Yeah, we know that. You don't have to keep telling us and making fun of us for not agreeing w/you.

Get it?

just as long as you realize that applies to you too, then sure, i get it.

Oh, I get it. You guys tell it to me over and over and over.........yet never seem to look in the mirror.

what are you talking about?

The team sucks. but i'm not gonna be all over the boards crying about it, or be like some other posters and make conspiracy theories like its 3am and we're watching ancient aliens.

What am I talking about? I am talking about that most people rip anyone who questions the Browns. They act like the few who question the Brown's moves are ripping the positive posters, but the namecalling and belittling tactics come from those who support the FO no matter what. That is a fact. And if you don't fit into that category.........let it go.

dude, i think the team is headed in the right direction

but 7-9 is still a losing record. and we still suck. when we get to 8-8 or higher this season coming up, then we won't suck anymore.

on and BTW, we need to cool it with the "other teams in our division are aging"

we've been saying that for the last 3 years. yet we are still in the basement of the division, and their aging teams always seem to not only get into the playoffs, but win playoff games.

That phrase needs to be retired on this board.

Didn't Butch go 7 and 9 in his first year?

We can look at that 7 and 9 record w/out analyzing it and say it's okay. However, our schedule was extremely weak. Amazingly weak. It won't be weak this year.

And more specifically "the Steelers are declining."