The Gipper Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Now that the Browns have lost 4 starters in FA.....with the unlikelihood that they will all be replaced by other near equal FAs, it is clear that this team must build through the draft. And the way to do that is to get as many draft picks as possible. A trade I suggested earlier still sounds perfect to me: Trade down from #2 to #4 with the Cowboys. Take back also their 2d round pick at #34..plus like a 6th rounder. That would give us #4, #32, #34, and #65 With needs now at QB, WR, OL, DE, DB.....and more......we need the picks to fill the holes. If not the Cowboys...who else could be a possible trade partner
gftChris Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 *pulls up* *pitches tent* *roasts marshmallows* Yep, we need a massive influx of talent now.
Clevfan4life Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Ill sau this. I still personally would want bosa, but if hortons like i just wouldnt know howvto shoehorn talent like that into my system... Than fuck it, but bend some team the fuck over with a greased car axle. If nobody bites though you take bpa. You dont sell that #2 pick for a couple six packs and some 6th rounders thrown in for good measure
Tour2ma Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 "camp" is officially off my keyword search list...
Mike H Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Explain the motivation for Cowboys to trade up two spots
gftChris Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Explain the motivation for Cowboys to trade up two spots Not much. Getting ahead of the Chargers for...?
Unsympathetic Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I don't think there will be a trade down.. not because I don't agree, but because no other team will want to give enough picks to appropriately value the #2 spot. Better to get both Wentz and Michael Thomas [to become our Bortles-Robinson] and let them grow together than the pu-pu platter of midround picks that never pan out.
TexasAg1969 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Well I'm wiling to see if we are done with FA first. And even then it won't matter what any of us thinks. What will matter is what analytics tells our FO to think.
Tour2ma Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 And even then it won't matter what any of us thinks. Nothing personal, Ag, but this is my least favorite of all the Forum cliches'... Of course it's true, but of course we are all here to share our opinions anyway...
TexasAg1969 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Nothing personal, Ag, but this is my least favorite of all the Forum cliches'... Of course it's true, but of course we are all here to share our opinions anyway... And even then it won't matter what any of us thinks including our FO brainiacs. What will matter is what analytics tells our FO to think. There - fixed it for ya Tour.
Unsympathetic Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 That's simply not true. Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted. No model is ever "plug and play" - it's simply about having more data to understand the things you're choosing between. Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented. In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 There's nobody to trade up for.
Mike H Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 There's nobody to trade up for. Ding ding ding
TexasAg1969 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted. Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented. Coulda fooled me. First they tell us what they think (these key players need to be retained) and then we proceed to screw it up and lose them all because analytics tells them not to bid that high. So is dog wagging tail or vice versa? Say what you wish but it appears to me that analytics won over understanding.
Unsympathetic Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Analytics have nothing to do with negotiating tactics.. they're not the same thing despite your efforts at conflating the two. BrownsFO offered Schwartz a contract, and Schwartz rejected it.. Thus the analytics supported keeping Schwartz, or they wouldn't have offered him in the first place. Schwartz signed at an offer price LESS than what we offered. That was a function of Schwartz's agent playing dirty pool with BrownsFO and not being honest regarding KC's offer. Browns' first offer was the highest bid, but Schwartz rejected that in search of endless riches. So, he didn't "want to be here" -- rather, he wanted money, and misjudged his own market.
Taco918 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Coulda fooled me. First they tell us what they think (these key players need to be retained) and then we proceed to screw it up and lose them all because analytics tells them not to bid that high. So is dog wagging tail or vice versa? Say what you wish but it appears to me that analytics won over understanding. Do you have any sources to back up your claim that analytics is the sole reasoning why we didn't resign them? Because to me, it sounds like your blaming something that you have a tenuous grasp on. Mack and Gibson wanted to leave. It was well known and doesn't take analytics to figure that out. We didn't spend borderline WR 1 money on a WR who had one decent year. Schwartz tried to play our offer on others to get a bigger deal elsewhere so we pulled the offer because he was trying to two time us. None of that has anything to do with analytics. It's basic common sense and owning a pair of balls. Why would you waste time and money on people who don't want to be here? Why overpay for one decent year? Why allow yourself to get played?
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Analytics have nothing to do with negotiating tactics.. they're not the same thing despite your efforts at conflating the two. BrownsFO offered Schwartz a contract, and Schwartz rejected it.. Thus the analytics supported keeping Schwartz, or they wouldn't have offered him in the first place. Schwartz signed at an offer price LESS than what we offered. That was a function of Schwartz's agent playing dirty pool with BrownsFO and not being honest regarding KC's offer. That has zero to do with analytics, and more to do with Schwartz not judging his own market correctly. Exactly. Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone." Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
Mike H Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Exactly. Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone." Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking. Somewhat agree -- they appear to be taking a stand that Cleveland is no longer the place you use to get more money elsewhere, or get overpaid in order to come play.
TexasAg1969 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Somewhat agree -- they appear to be taking a stand that Cleveland is no longer the place you use to get more money elsewhere, or get overpaid in order to come play. I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment.
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment. That is why you build a winner through the draft until you have an established rep for winning. Until that point, you will overpay for elderly bums to finish below 5 wins.
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I hate to break it to you, but for most players Cleveland IS the one place in the NFL you have to overpay in order for them to come here. They don't want to play in the disaster zone. That's just how it is at the moment. And the only way to change that is to stop overpaying.
Mike H Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Get the QB and win some games to shut some dickfaces up in 2016. It'll go a long way to changing that perception. Get the QB and the rest will fall in line. Get the QB. Get the. Get. Say it with me
Tour2ma Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed. As if it EVER does... Browns' first offer was the highest bid, but Schwartz rejected that in search of endless riches. So, he didn't "want to be here" -- rather, he wanted money, and misjudged his own market. Pretty sure he wanted both... Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone." Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking. Agree with the stance, but hope what was said was, "Mitch, we live in a different world than we did 24 hours ago..."
Tour2ma Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Say it with me Draft Day dialogue is going to get a work out this year... Get Tour's QB and the rest will fall in line... Close as I could get...
Mike H Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I think it would be a reach for Goff, but I don't care which one they pick. As long as they take the step they need to in order to address the most important position in the game, when they have the chance to do so -- there shouldn't be any talk about a Top 5 pick in the future. Say it with me, Tour.... Get the freaking QB when you have the chance!
Opal312 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I don't think there will be a trade down.. not because I don't agree, but because no other team will want to give enough picks to appropriately value the #2 spot. Better to get both Wentz and Michael Thomas [to become our Bortles-Robinson] and let them grow together than the pu-pu platter of midround picks that never pan out. This makes too much sense to actually happen, Wentz to Thomas. I like it but I'm just an old woman who's loved the Browns far too long! And Blake Bortles has 2 of the best receivers Hurns & Robinson, Malik Jackson, Tashaun Gipson, this team will win their division.
Tour2ma Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Say it with me, Tour.... Get the freaking QB when you have the chance! Alright... Get the freaking QB *cough gough cough* when you have the chance!
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Agree with the stance, but hope what was said was, "Mitch, we live in a different world than we did 24 hours ago..." I would much rather they called him a "pancake eating motherfucker".
gumby73 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Agree, it's always #1. take the QB if he has ability to play in this league. Old or new, but at this point, now were at, #2. can you protect your investment? #3. Does he have weapons to perform as a QB? #4. Can your Defense keep your QB in a position to win games? Right now our QB has been a piñata waiting to happen. Yea, You can draft one, but we sure the hell have ruined them putting them on the field not prepared or weapons..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.