Shefter: Browns "Strategy" is about Dead Money

[King of Kings]

Originally Posted by Riffer X

Well, let me respond for them for now. Masters has left for good because he chose to come around and only nitpick people's opinions rather than ever giving his actual own take. We are talking a guy who can't handle a board with Shep or Flugs, yet would deal with da ich, Gilloolly, Jaqueer the Bandwagonneer and the biggest asshole ever to grace the internet---Knowdick.

Golfer flat out stated the Browns were going to suck this year since we had to gut everything after Mangini. He can fine tune what I just said, but that is the gist of it.

This is the reality of what happens folks, but everybody was apeshit ballistic to kick EM outta here. This does not mean I don't support these guys, but we have a serious uphill battle in front of us. Just keep my Colty upright, no matter what you do Walrus.

Ironically, these guys have a reprieve to build things at their own pace. Mangie, on the other hand, had to put a competitive team out there. Gee, ya think that explains some of the old vets and familiar faces like Bowens etc? If EM was in charge right now, it would be hideous. Everything would be blamed on the fact nobody wanted to play for him.

Get used to it folks, we are going to blow a couple years, but that is the way it has to be done. If Colt is that good, we can overcome some things, especially if the injury bug doesn't kill us. Yeah, depend on that!

Irony indeed, Mangini (supposedly) got a one shot "win now" opportunity and fired when he didn't yet the firee's have already in a round about way hinted that they probably won't reach those expectations in year one themselves. We shot ourselves in the ass on that one, again.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by Alo

I love what Ted Thompson has done: it's the model I'd base my team on. But there are details that need to added to the Packers story, like how they weren't a historically losing team and a poorly-run franchise before Thompson took over in '05. Donald Driver, Cullen Jenkins, Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, Nick Barnett, and others were there before he took the top job. And they had that Favre guy to man the helm while they developed a great cockpit to make sure their young QB would thrive.

I just think that the context is important and possibly could justify some tweaking of the formula.

There were years there where they went (I think) 4-12 and 6-10. I don't think they were panicking or signing a bunch of starters off the FA list.

Look I get the fact that we need to temper the "build through the draft" mentality just as much as we need to temper "bringing in 20 free agents" thinking (as BW suggested BB did through his magnificent use of hyperbole.)

Point is we brought in 2 RT's (Pashos and Womack), a RB (Hillis), a TE (Watson), 2 LB's (Gocong, Fujita), and a CB (Brown) who ALL started last season. 6 postions last season were manned by players developed by other teams, and they will start again this season. Now we have to add more to that pile of starters?

(If not starters but just depth - well shit have some patience. We have time for that.)

What is frustrating to me is these guys I listed above? Some of them replaced OTHER free agents/trades we brought in that were starting. So not only are we NOT developing our own talent, we are replacing other teams talents with - yes - other teams talents.

So we pick up SIX (6) starters from last season that played for other teams. Mid-level guys if you will. Are we supposed to pick up MORE mid-level guys to start this season? How many? 22 spots on the field and we're supposed to field someone elses talent on 10-12 of those spots?

Than there is the argument that if you want to see what the young guys can do, you don't have to do this for five seasons. But you also can't keep them on the opportunity time squad either. They need to play to see what you have. Why not this season?

I am sorry but this was not the Mangini plan. He NEVER played the young guys. Remember Haden on the bench? Remember Harrison coming off the bench? I want to see this season what good coaching, good game planning, and a young team can do.

You can and will add FA's to your ball club. The goal is to sign your own home grown talent. Other teams rarely let homegrown stars go free.

Mid-level Free Agents who don't break the bank? Shit might as well play the Mid-Level talent you picked in the draft and plucked off the street.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by King of Kings

Irony indeed, Mangini (supposedly) got a one shot "win now" opportunity and fired when he didn't

Mangini had the same mentality in year one as he did in year two. He played the older vets vs the younger players. Lets try not to rewrite history. I liked and still like Eric Mangini, and I bought in and drank the kool aid. I am not some outsider remembering how this all went down. He did go 5-12 that first season, after starting out 1-11. If his idea of "win now" is 1-11, well.............

[Sez.EJ]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Both of us staying calm and respectful... why do you call it "knee jerk?" I'm observing that with virtually all of the free agents signed now, the Browns have only shopped in the bargain big and are 30 mill under the cap, either most in the NFL or close, depending on two conflicting reports.

National media are a little flummoxed, too. Is that "knee jerk?" It's not like we're talking BEFORE all the free agents are gone, right?

Right now, with virtually every viable f/a off the market and the Browns sitting on the biggest gap is a reasonable time to ask, "Uh... what the fuck are the Browns doing and why?" Adkins is. Shefter is. Florio is. Clayton did ("What have the Browns done? Nothing.").

It's surprising that a team trying to catch up is sitting still. And you say that's a knee-jerk why? Because huge trades are in the offing?

Maybe they have determined that the free agents out there do not fit what we want to do, and our direction.... Either due to skill set, age, or just the mentality of that certain player. Then there are guys who just do not want to be in Cleveland. I do not want them to spend money on players just to go through the motions of filling holes. If you do not like the product.. you keep your money in your pocket. Dead money..Shefter is a joke.. Dead money is spending just because you have it and no regard as to what your spending it on.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

New guys step into an established system with guys who know what they're doing.

So if there is no established system, should we keep bringing outsiders in? Should we keep sidestepping the talent we bring in for some mid-level Manny Lawson - Nate Clements types?

[King of Kings]

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

Mangini had the same mentality in year one as he did in year two. He played the older vets vs the younger players. Lets try not to rewrite history. I liked and still like Eric Mangini, and I bought in and drank the kool aid. I am not some outsider remembering how this all went down. He did go 5-12 that first season, after starting out 1-11. If his idea of "win now" is 1-11, well.............

No rewriting here, i'm talking about last year alone. Yeah he played his vets and worked young guys in on rotations, i'm not disputing that. What i'm getting at is i've heard both Holmgren and Shurmer mention having a "3 year plan." It is ironic because Mangers DID say he had a 4 year plan before last season even started and maybe before that yet received 1 year from the same guys talking about "have patience" and "it's a 3 year plan." I'm just saying that's pretty ironic.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by King of Kings

It is ironic because Mangers DID say he had a 4 year plan before last season even started and maybe before that yet received 1 year from the same guys talking about "have patience" and "it's a 3 year plan." I'm just saying that's pretty ironic.

You lost me. Holmgren is not allowed to have a plan of his own? He was supposed to stick with Mangini because he had a plan? I am not sure what is so ironic, honest.

Mangini cleaned up the team. Yet his team was full of slow, old players. He sat the faster younger players. Thanks for cleaning up the team. But some of the things he put in place were contrary to what Mike Holmgren wanted.

Those two were not compatible. We all know that.

[cw24]

I think the team's position has been pretty clear that they intend to build through the draft, not FA. Until the team improves and drafts more talent to compete within the division, why waste the money on a FA that get hurts, doesn't live up to expectations, etc.

[Alo]

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

There were years there where they went (I think) 4-12 and 6-10. I don't think they were panicking or signing a bunch of starters off the FA list.

After the Packers went 4-12 in '05, Thompson fired HC Mike Sherman and gave Charles Woodson a huge deal. Just sayin...

Look I get the fact that we need to temper the "build through the draft" mentality just as much as we need to temper "bringing in 20 free agents" thinking.

Agreed. But I'm still gonna disagree with the details in the rest of your post. Of the six new starters you mentioned, one's gone (Womack), another's unreliable (Pashos), and a third doesn't look like a good scheme fit (Gocong). That opens up more open spots for upgrading the starting 22.

Ideally, some of the younguns will step up, but I'd love to have mid-level vets behind them, at least at one or two pivotal positions. If Sheard's injured hammy lingers and Mitchell proves not to be explosive enough to threaten the edge, I expect we'll be much happier if there's a Stylez White or Raheem Brock ready to go. Maybe those guys won't come here, but we very much could use 'em.

[Brown Warrior]

What hyberbole? Look it up. Belicheck (and Pioli) literally brought in like 20 free agents. They turned over half that team. It's the stuff of legend, man.

Was "hyperbole" the fucking word of the day somewhere? Because it's being misused to an absolutely sadistic level. Here it would be "exaggeration"... if it had been. And it wasn't.

[mikeyP]

Alo - stop making so much sense this instant sir!

[Flugel]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Yes it is. Honestly.

But I'd like to hear WHY we're okay with the Browns not competing to upgrade the roster and close the talent gap. Why it makes sense for a team with money to spend and holes to fill to pass up on affordable upside players. Why it's okay for us to be the cheapest team in the NFL, 30 mill under the cap.

I just don't understand why some of you are okay with whatever the team wants to do. I would like to win, frankly... and I am not seeing a commitment to making our team better. That's all. Not some wacky insidious revolutionary nonsense.

But I appreciate your post.

You got that Mystic River Dance down pat Shep. "It's the end of the world as we know it." James Jones doesn't make us better. When the Pack decided they needed to clinch a playoff spot and climb to 9-7 at the end of the season, they realized they needed to play Jordy Nelson in lieu of the unreliable James Jones. That continued throughout the playoffs. Do you want greener grass even if it's crab grass?

The reason I'm sick of overpaying FAs? Donte Stallworth, Shaun Rogers, Corey Williams, Shaun Smith, Antwaan Peek, Matt Stewart, Shante Orr, Jason Fisk, Ted Washinton, Tur-telle Smith, Abe Elam, CJ Mosely, John St Claire, Robert Royal, Joe Andruzzi, Kevin Shaffer, Jake Delhomme, Trent Dilfer, Jeff Garcia, Ty Detmer, Gary Baxter, Jamal Lewis, Seth McKinney, AWOL Tucker. WHO made us better???? And here's the guys I was pumped about for however short term age and injury cut start volmes/careers: LeCharles Bentley, Jamir Miller and Grandpa McGinest. We made GIGANTIC plans around Jamir Miller's talent the year he severed his achilles. How much did we plan to PAY Benttley when all we had to do was draft him at friendlier prices of round 2, when we took Melvin Fowler some 10-15 slots later. Free agency has ALWAYS been at the expense of good drafting here and it's never worked once. There's no examples of it ever making us look like we've evolved from the expansion team in 1999. The world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat. Oh shit, we've been wrong - it's round. Those weren't crystal balls in Baltimore and Pittsburgh all this time - those were round globes researching navigation to post seasons.

When we've thrown ALL our marbles into free agency, the rest of our division always seemed like they were drafting at least 9 to 10 guys. Meanwhile, Savage traded away ALL but 4 draft picks scheduled for 2009. Even worse, this followed drafting 1 keeper in 2008. Today, we're ADDING picks to the 2012 draft while young guys like Haden and Ward are looking good. And Hillis actually came through a trade where we ADDED a 4th round pick as well. BETTER front office. And this Greco-Roman OG ONLY costs us a 7th round pick if he STARTS. How many of our 7th round picks since 1999 have started here? In essence, we don't lose a thing.

Free agency isn't done. Right now, they're just auctioning off the divas. I'm glad we're not gonna bring in 1 more prick acting like he's entitled. That hasn't worked yet here. The guys they will look for will have something to prove just like Hillis (even though he was a trade). I think FA choices like Fujita, Gocong-or-apeshit and Watson have been way more sensible than we've seen previously. Teams with the best records over the last 10 years have done it almost exclusively through the draft like Indy and Pittsburgh. Once that WORKED, then the FAs started saying "hey, I want me some NE or hey I want me some Baltimore." Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder are your free agency goofballs. I'm glad Jerry didn't need Jimmy because now I call that team Dallas In Chains.