ballpeen

9 hours ago, Canton Dawg said:

I wonder what’s going to happen to the property values there, I still own a rental property there.

I suppose it would depend on where it is in conjunction to the stadium.  In looking at the maps, it doesn't look like many residential homes would need to be bought.  Even if so, they would be bought for market value.  All would be bought before and during construction. The city, county and state wouldn't allow a project such as this to be held up by people who want to ask for what it might be worth in 10 years.  They could buy the property at fair value and more or less evict you out.

I'd be a little more concerned, at least in the short-term window about how this might increase property taxes.

On 2/12/2024 at 4:19 PM, AP1 said:

Super Bowl 59 – Feb. 9, 2025: Caesars Superdome – New Orleans, LA

Super Bowl 60 – Feb. 8, 2026: Levi’s Stadium – Santa Clara, CA

Super Bowl 61 - Feb. 14, 2027: SoFi Stadium - Inglewood, CA

Then the regulars: Miami, Tampa, Houston, Phoenix 

Then then the past: Atlanta, Dallas, the Rose Bowl 

That's the next 10 years of possibilities.

Now, look at the potentials: London and Frankfort

I'm not for it, but it's hard to see it not happening. Push the game back an extra week to allow for time zone change and make it the Sunday before President's Day. I can't imagine it not being part of the NFL's thought process.

I don't see Cleveland on the list....food for thought.

I don't think you would need to push the game back.  It is already set with a 2 week gap.  Teams would just have to get over to London, or wherever as is normal now.  With all the press conferences etc, everybody is already at the site well in advance of the game and would be well adjusted to the time change.

13 minutes ago, Flugel said:

The interesting thing here is 2 of the 3 lowest paid Head Coaches are employed by the teams in Ohio - that have drastically improved their frequency of making the playoffs fwiw.  

That will probably change.  I think Taylor is on his first contract as well.  Both will probably get in the 6-8 mil range.  If I was Haslam I would extend him 3 years now.  That gives Stefanski 4 years of security.  After that, wait and see, looking to keep giving 3 years deals going in to the 4th season if warranted.

On 3/21/2024 at 7:10 AM, tiamat63 said:

Foreman has made any mid to late round RB addition likely a complete after thought. All the more reason I believe this draft will be heavy in the trenches. 

I hope it is.  Everything I read is that this is a strong draft in those areas.  Get while the getting is good.  Couple that with we have a lot of trench players on 1 year deals or are starting to get "old" so it makes perfect sense to get a few in here this year to season up so they can play next year.

The Browns are finally in a position where we can use the draft to just pluck the best players we can and or if needs is a consideration we are now drafting for next years needs.

2 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

 

 The Brownies would have been better served, from a talent development standpoint, in trading low draft capital for Fields and sitting him behind Watson.  This is both a smart move in terms of keeping roster churning, but also any potential long term contingency plan.    That's where Flugs is right.

 Every Buckeye and their mother, shouting about Watson getting off the field the moment he throws a single interception, while the cheers rain down for Fields, is another reality you are absolutely correct about as well.     One, I'd reckon, is the biggest reason a trade for Justin wasn't explored further by the front office.

And the reason why.

I've never said Winston was the best choice.  Simply the only choice, which becomes the best choice.

This team, with a good D doesn't need to be conducting a battle of the bands, so to speak.

11 hours ago, Flugel said:

Welcome to Cleveland!  Bringing up a QB controversy implies you're confident in Watson?  Actions speaking louder than words shows you worrying his critics are right.  

Sorry man, I pretty much stopped reading there and know you put some work in to response.

 

You ignored my point.  You know, I assume you do, there are many people seeking to find anything wrong with Watson and will jump at the chance to just rip the guy.  Heck, many will not be satisfied with anything he does as QB..

Using your logic, it sounds like you are wanting the back-up to play and don't like the selection.

1986 Masters...Sunday round.  Jack won!

On a local note...10 cent beer night, 1974 

10 hours ago, Vagitron said:

Outside of the albatross contract the Watson situation is interesting. If they expect him to be ready why sign Winston, Huntley and still have DTR in the wings? That's a crowded room. Browns getting ready to give Watson the Wilson treatment? 

I don't know man.  I doubt the Wilson treatment..at least not this year.

As for the signings...we needed a back-up.  For a number of reasons we weren't going back to Flacco.  After Winston, the Huntley signing could be viewed as a head scratcher.  I think it is a sign we aren't as high on DTR as some thought.  I think we will look to trade the guy at some point before the season starts.  If not, take our chances he falls through to the practice squad.

And yes, with Watson off a shoulder injury, I am sure the team will look to monitor and limit his throwing through the minis and camp.

Henry is a big, rugged guy.  He still has speed.  Probably the best punisher since Alstott was ramrodding through the league.  I don't look forward to seeing him twice a year.

7 hours ago, Flugel said:

I hear ya CD! To be honest, I don't think putting him back to the RT position he played at Bama would make him any more efficient.  He's definitely not what we want facing TJ Watt.  I will say this - I liked that he let Berry defer a nice chunk of million$ to a later date so we could sign people.

Most people have a tough time with TJ.

I would like to see...at least try to put Jones on the left side and Wills on the right.  I saw or read somewhere that Wills is left handed.  When he is beat, it is mostly to the inside.  Possibly having his dominate hand on the inside if playing RT will help him.

Just seems like an obvious try.

As is said about LT's, if it doesn't work there, try in on the right side.  If it doesn't work there, put him at guard.  I'd try all the options before I just let him walk.

As the Stones sang:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime, you'll find
You get what you need

16 hours ago, Bob806 said:

I don't get it either, unless they aren't sold on DTR. 

We fans can only speculate. It's obvious that 4 QBs won't be rostered. 

I agree.  There was speculation that a few teams wanted to trade for DTR.  I think we will be willing to trade him at some point before the season starts.

Or...this is to cover the bases if DTR hasn't improved.  If he has...who knows?

[quote]While professional football has to generate a profit, again I ask, how much and how far has it removed itself from the common fan?[/quote]

What is a common fan?

I think that definition changes with the times.  The big problem football has in keeping prices in line with what i think you mean by the common fan/man is the limited number of games they play.  They get 8 home games compared to baseball's  81 games.  

They can have the $15-$20 seats.  They can run a dollar hotdog day.  Football can't do that.  As for how much money should they make, I am a capitalist. They should be able to make as much as they can just like players should make as much as they can.  If people buy the product, don't worry about the folks who can't, and I don't say that in caviler way.

LOl...I rounded my ticket price..I didn't factor the service fee..lol

I agree on the announcement of the ticket increase.  Seems that should have been made before the initial payment was collected. That said, I expected prices to go up so it wasn't a shock.  I hear you, I have already gone past the threshold on price I made when I first got these things 18 years ago...maybe 19.  Anyway, here I am, still buying.

It is a marketing machine.  Heck, the Browns have a waiting list they cap at 4000 people.  It's full and people pay to get on the list.  People can't even get on the list until slots open up.  The Browns don't care all that much if people drop their seats.  They have thousands waiting in the wings who want seats.

Maybe I shouldn't say don't care.  More in line with not being concerned with filling the seats.

That was a rant that seems to have been bottled up for a long time, and this has been how it goes for a long time.  I can still hear my Dad complaining because his season tickets went up to $14 a seat. Maybe for the 1965 season.  I have slept since then.

I know all about the price of games.  My 2 seats now cost me $4500 a year. I suspect the same people being priced out of going to games are more or less like the people priced out of going to game when tickets went up to $14 a seat.

This just goes in to the "it is what it is" category.  The NFL has never been in some magical category.  It has always been about money.  At least since players began to play for money and owners began to sell tickets.

I get it, just as the front office seems to see it the same way as I.  So there's that.

You know damn good and well there is a block of fans looking for an excuse to root against Watson.  A QB controversy will cost us more wins than some back-up QB might lose.  Got it?

On 3/12/2024 at 11:06 AM, tiamat63 said:

The world at large has been shifting to this mindset, the last decade or so it has really picked up steam.  Not just in football, but just about every aspect of life. 

 

 I can't stand it.    Especially when it's something I've loved and been deeply devoted to pretty much my entire life. 

Just speaking from a football standpoint, the league has expanded to the point where there aren't enough quality players to fill all the job openings.  It started with QB's maybe 20 years ago.  There simply aren't enough quality QB's to fill the 32 starting quality openings.  Half the league is looking for starters.  When they finally get them, the half that has them now won't have them.

20 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

Your point makes sense, with Cooper, Jeudy, Moore and possibly Tillman entrenched in the first four spots.

I haven't really seen anything in Bell that makes me think he's a guarantee to make the roster for a third time.

But one thing to consider regarding if we draft a WR or not is that while the room seems pretty set, Cooper, Jeudy and Moore are all free agents after this season. The WR room looks crowded now, but at this time next year it could be somewhat barren. I'm kind of surprised the Browns haven't extended Cooper, at the same time lessening his salary cap number. 

I understand the point.  We will probably draft someone, but nothing says we can't or won't extend any of the mentioned players.  Also, if those players move on, we will have that money to move on to the next batch of rental receivers.

Something tells me we will have some receivers on the team next year.  That comment isn't meant to be a dig at you, rather just a matter of fact.

All one has to do is read this thread to understand.

The team isn't interested in a QB controversy.  With every incompletion after maybe game one, the OSU morons would be chanting "We Want Fields" or whoever is the popular player of the hour by the other morons.

We have been through all of that.  People who want more of that are simpletons.

It's a game.  Enjoy life.

Pretty much agree.  I agree that a O lineman will be high on the list, and where we draft, one could very well be the BPA.

RB is a question mark.  Hines is a situational guy.  If we don't draft a back, we will sign one or two as UDFA.  I am not sure about Chubb.  If we draft a guy fairlt high, it might mean Chubb isn't progressing very well.  If we don't, then maybe we feel he is nearing a full go.  If so, a RB room with Chubb, Ford, Strong and Hines.

I also think that Berry likes the WR room.  I am not sure we will do much more in that area.  To bring guys in means we have to cut players already on the team.  I am not sure Berry wants to cut any....Bell might be the cut guy is we draft a WR.

Back to the Oline..I wouldn't be surprised if we draft 2 Oline players.  O line is very deep this year.  It's questionable we keep Wills after this year.  Something on the O line i would like to see in camp is putting Jones at LT and Wills at RT.  Wills played RT his whole career before playing here.  He was a stud, so call me naive, but making a switch seems like an obvious try.

A move that can't hurt anything.

To me, consultant is like a part time position.  I don't know if he is going to be in the building every day.  He will be active through the draft and camp.  After that...we'll see.

I think the guy has his eyes on the OSU job if Day has problems this year.  Ohio isn't a bad place to hang out if that is the carrot you are after.

A decent enough signing.  We are talking back-up QB here, we aren't talking about a Watson replacement which is what some people seem to want.

I think part of the reason we moved on from AVP is because of Elija Moore.  Not because of anything Moore did, it was about what he didnt do.  It seemed to me we simply slotted Moore in to the Schwartz role.  Moore was our trick play specialist. Trick plays require an element of surprise.  Wnen Moore came in to the game, teams were on the look out.

It just seemed that for the first 5-6 games of the season Moore was in a decoy role rather than an actual receiving weapon.

I don't like it, but the NFL has a world of untapped fans.

7 hours ago, AP1 said:

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know the answer. I've never been in a position where 51 guys count against the salary cap and 25% of that cap is stacked against one player. 

It's the way of the NFL and is to be expected. I understand. I just have a hard time believing that guys on the roster don't get cynical about QB pay and the albatross it puts around the necks of these organizations. 

Tom Brady was an exception. He played for a discount so that the Patriots could bolster their roster. The rings speak for themselves. 

It probably been that way for so long that players don't really care.  They know that going in.

I am sure we could find a few examples to differ, but for the most part the QB has been the highest paid player on the team since when?  The 70"s?  80's?  At least the top type QB's.  Not a rookie or some guy signed to a 1-2 year deal.

I will agree there are times where QB's get top money but don't produce top results.

21 minutes ago, nickers said:

yeah , let us know when Mr.Peepee does something... Meanwhile his contract is gonna strangle this team... But keep smooching do nothings balls...

I am not doing any of that.

They are separate issues.