I don't remember any low ball on Mack...I remember us transitioning tag him making him the average of the top 10 paid tackles.
O linemen to be exact.
If they had offered Mack a fair contract he wouldn't have reached FA nor would they have had to transition tag him then end up with the poison pill opt out. 2 + 2 still does equal 4 right?
There is a pattern here of letting our best talent reach FA then trying to sign them when the leverage is gone. What that has done is it has meant the near lose of Mack and the poison pill opt out. Skrine left, and Cameron left, and this year I strongly suspect others will follow.
Cameron I remember him basically signing for the same contract we laid out for him.
Why would a player opt out of a contract of the same value, does that mean he said I have had enough? Look sign the guy up during the season or before, pay fair market value. Most players (this is business) will take the security over leaving even if they think they can get better money thru FA. We do the cheep thing and wait it out saving dollars and lose out in FA.
But what it really amounts to is being fair and paying a player according to his value to the team.
Skrine yes, I think we were not willing to offer him a top OUTSIDE CB...he ended up signing for just that and now moved inside as the Jets end up signing two outside
CBs - that one I agree with. We made a decision that many top teams end up making when they have a valid young player that is/can play the same position.
They wanted him back, and they knew they wanted him back going back to last off season why not pay him and give him the security all players value. Short of that get a deal done in November, but get it done. The Browns at this point are letting proven talent get away. Meanwhile it appears they are also alienating those players to the point that they won't re sign. Its a balancing act to be sure but sometimes you just have to go the extra mile with a player it builds confidence in the player and it spreds good will within the locker room. It says we will take care of our own and we will be fair.
Why it is the worst thing for Gipson to do hold out. That threat is not a valid one cause I think Poyer has emerged as good depth at the FS position. Of course we want Gipson. But if push came to shove we go with Poyer. Gipson sitting out a year would have his value drop tremendously especially if Poyer did well - Cause most teams would think its the system and not the player. Just saying its never ever a good decision for a player to sit out a season or threaten to. I'm surprised you would bring that up for a valid solution - solution for what? To make the FO pay cause they are evil? I don't get that thought process.
Of course Poyer has studded out in shorts with no contact. Really Tabber come on. Gipson is not so easy to replace he has great instincts and is one of the very few difference makers we have. Save the Poyer studding out speach for the uninformed.
I wouldn't sit out the season just until week 10....
Whats wrong with being fair? You think the players don't notice...
Oh and while we are taking jabs at each other (Hoyer comment). You always take the side of management from year to year its always the same the FO/coaching staff can do no wrong.