There is no 'the process' with this team....

[flyingfooldoug]

22 hours ago, D Bone said:

So let me try.....

Wins / Losses x Time = X

Got it!!

X = The Process 

Close, more like XXX. It is kinda obscene

[Tour2ma]

6 hours ago, hoorta said:

I thought he had final say on the roster- sounds like evaluating talent to me....  I've already pointed out- if it was a "consensus" the "consensus" seriously overvalued McCarron, and valued draft picks more than a potential franchise QB twice. They're batting with two strikes on them already Tour- one more, and they're OUT. 

So Berry is the defacto GM? Don't think so, h.

As for McCarron... disagree. Not that the offer was high... I've already written that it was. But that it was "seriously" high. Already know that when dealing with a Divisional rival you are going to overpay. We did for Zeitler, only in this case not because the Bengals had a role, but because there was a bonus for us in his signing of weakening them.

Finally I don't see two strikes... not even sure I see one. Because "potential" is not the yardstick. Were it then were up to at least strike 6... maybe 8.

6 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

Since all you're looking at are the wins and losses, how can you tell when sashi was hired? Were the Browns a great power before he arrived?

And if you can't tell the difference...... how, exactly, is sashi the problem?

What's the basis for stating that replacing Sashi would make a change --- given that your data haven't shown his hiring to be consequential in the first place?

This "ride down from the heavens and magically make no mistakes" role is a job description that no human I've ever met would take on.  Sounds like this is a classic "build someone up as a savior simply so that we can knock him down when it turns out he's human after all" move.  Even Belichick got 5 years here - and if you watch the old stories of Belichick closely, you'll see plenty of binders where he uses analytics to quantify players in the draft.

Ed Zachery...

[Tour2ma]

15 hours ago, Tacosman said:

two of those are first round draft picks.  The philosophy of every single team in the league is to develop their first round draft picks(which, weeds excepted, are by definition young players)....so that part isn't a philosophy.  One way in which organizations and front offices are judged are on whether or not those picks hit.  We'll see if players like Njoku and Peppers do eventually play well, and thats how the organization will be judged.  

As a general rule aren't 1st rounders supposed to have immediate impact? Start Day 1?

Point was the players I listed aren't just young, they are young for 2017 draft picks. Garrett... 21. Njoku... 21. Kizer... 21. Then add the sheer number of picks we've made and rostered over the past two years. It is a philosophy emphasis that permeates our approach... and that includes round one.

[Tacosman]

15 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

As a general rule aren't 1st rounders supposed to have immediate impact? Start Day 1?

Point was the players I listed aren't just young, they are young for 2017 draft picks. Garrett... 21. Njoku... 21. Kizer... 21. Then add the sheer number of picks we've made and rostered over the past two years. It is a philosophy emphasis that permeates our approach... and that includes round one.

whether a player without any nfl experience is 21 or 22 is really a trivial and likely meaningless point as it applies here.  And Most round 1-5 guys drafted each year by teams(good and bad) make the roster...plus some udfas every year(to a varying degree of course).  Every first round pick is going to be with every team the next year and the year after that(and usually the year after that) per the way the cba is done. So even good teams build up bunches of 'young' players.  Thats just the nature of the nfl with its average career length.  Very bad teams like the browns, for obvious reasons, tend to acquire more picks than they are generally slotted to recieve...none of these things speak to a game-changing process or philosophy here for a very bad team.  

 

[Tour2ma]

There's a difference between general rule and fundamental philosophy. Exhibits A, B and C were in my above post; here are

• Exhibit D... Shon Coleman... an unfinished project we were willing to stash for a nearly a year knowing he'd not see the field.
• Exhibit E... Keeping four mid to late WR picks a second year, when little promise was seen year one.
• Exhibit F... 24 picks in two years.

Not every pick is an example... not as if there aren't similar examples by other teams... but developing young players is a stated core principle of this organization and there's plenty of support that is what they are doing.