What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Cleveland Browns (8 Viewers)

I think it's at least possible (not saying it's likely) that nobody else wanted to come into a situation where his offensive assistants were chosen for him, so they were 'stuck' going back to Kyle, who would take just about any OC job in the NFL to avoid a demotion back to a position coaching job.

It was only a couple days ago that it was reported that Kyle's interview didn't go as planned, right?

This sometimes happens when organizations don't know what they're doing. It's how the Redskins got stuck with Zorn originally (nobody else would take the job with all the assistants already hired--though Kyle is much more qualified for a smaller job)
I believe those Shanny bad interview rumors from earlier this week were bogus. They were definitely disputed. I don't think we should take that report as fact. Personally I think it's much more believable that Browns/Shanny agents have been negotiating for the past few days while the team kept in touch with Shanny regarding other hires.
when Vic Carruci, another eternal optimist is reporting these rumors I think they carry a lot more legitimacy. Yeah, we don't know for sure, but that doesn't sit well.
All I'm saying is....people that can get their foot in the door were on polar opposites when reporting what supposedly happened in the interview. So really it's probably mixed up in the middle somewhere, but I certainly don't think the Browns moved on or were completely turned off from the interview. That's gotta be nonsense.

 
Doesn't think a clashing personality like a Johnny Football would be a good fit for Kyle. Stated he clashed with RG III when RG III last year and with Donovan McNabb. Um if you recal last year RG III's team mates didn't help to pick him up off the turf when he got sacked. The owner seemed to publically back RG III over the Shanahan so they were ostricized by the owner who favored his star QB. We've all seen the huge ego of McNabb and it seems RG III's ego got out of control last year when the owner puffed him up but his own team mates didn't seem to inclined to help out the guy. So a guy like Johnny Football may not be the best fit.
Great. So they may not be able to draft the best QB available because the OC they just hired might not get along with him. Awesome. Reeks of success.

 
From Schefter today.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10391225/kirk-cousins-open-being-traded-washington-redskins

Kirk Cousins open to being tradedUpdated: February 2, 2014, 10:43 AM ET
By Adam Schefter | ESPN

With the Washington Redskins making it clear that Robert Griffin III is their starting quarterback, backup Kirk Cousins is open to being traded, league sources told ESPN

Cousins believes he is ready to start and already has had discussions with the Redskins' hierarchy, which declared Griffin as their starter last month.

Cousins will not be eligible to be traded until March 11, but the Redskins are expected to receive calls from quarterback-needy teams.

One destination could be the Cleveland Browns, who plan to hire Kyle Shanahan as their new offensive coordinator, sources told ESPN on Saturday.

Shanahan has spent the last four seasons as Washington's offensive coordinator and worked with Cousins over the last two years.

Although he loves Washington and the organization, it is more important to Cousins to play, which is why he would welcome a trade to a team on which he would have that chance to start.

Shanahan and his father, former Washington head coach Mike Shanahan, were fired by the Redskins following a 3-13 season. Washington hired Jay Gruden as its new head coach last month.

Cousins has started four games and has appeared in eight contests overall during his two-year career, passing for 1,320 yards and eight touchdowns with 10 interceptions.
What might the cost be?

Possibly very-reasonable.

===================

Sigmund Bloom‏@SigmundBloom16 mins

@forpetessake42 @MattWaldman that being said, if cousins cost is 6th/7th... worth it to bring him in just to coach first round QB

 
i don't see cousins getting traded for the simple fact that he has a decent amount of value to the Redskins b/c of RGIII's injury risk and so they're going to demand a pretty high price which i'm not sure teams are going to be willing to pay. Unless some team really thinks he can come in and step in as their unquestioned starter which i'm not sure is the case.

 
We have a solid DEF. We just hired a coach with a brilliant defensive mind. Minor adjustments only in the draft needed.

Focus on offense for the most part.

If we pull for Watkins at 4, and an o-lineman with our next pick, I think that is our absolute best shot at being a solid team next season.

Hoyer comes in, fronted by a solid line, that gives him an extra second or two, has an elite weapon cache in gordon, watkins, cameron... we finally start to put up points.

I really feel like .500 is our floor next season if we made these moves. I know that sounds like VERY wishful thinking. and maybe it is. but a calm and poised QB with weaponary, and an elite DEF (which I believe we do)... things could really make a turnaround
I believe we need another good CB.The defenses abysmal performance on 3rd down was due to getting torched through the air.

Could Pettine fix this via a covergare scheme and/or a new scheme to get to the QB faster on passing downs?

Maybe.

I think we don't have enough good CB's.

But, I am all for Watkins at 4, OL at 26, and we need a RB either in the 2nd or 3rd round.

I believe there are enough good ones that we can wait until round 3 and get a huge upgrade over what we currently have.

 
(Rotoworld)A source tells the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the Browns are "highly unlikely" to trade for Kirk Cousins.

Analysis: New Browns offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan reportedly "loves" Cousins and the Redskins backup wants a chance to start. But the Plain Dealer is calling a trade a "remote possibility," and NBC News4 is hearing from sources that the Browns believe Brian Hoyer is a better option. We agree. Prior to an ACL tear, Hoyer led the Browns to two wins, averaging 295.0 yards while throwing five touchdowns and three interceptions. He makes for a fine bridge to the franchise quarterback Cleveland needs to find in the draft.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have a solid DEF. We just hired a coach with a brilliant defensive mind. Minor adjustments only in the draft needed. Focus on offense for the most part. If we pull for Watkins at 4, and an o-lineman with our next pick, I think that is our absolute best shot at being a solid team next season. Hoyer comes in, fronted by a solid line, that gives him an extra second or two, has an elite weapon cache in gordon, watkins, cameron... we finally start to put up points. I really feel like .500 is our floor next season if we made these moves. I know that sounds like VERY wishful thinking. and maybe it is. but a calm and poised QB with weaponary, and an elite DEF (which I believe we do)... things could really make a turnaround
I believe we need another good CB.The defenses abysmal performance on 3rd down was due to getting torched through the air.Could Pettine fix this via a covergare scheme and/or a new scheme to get to the QB faster on passing downs?Maybe.I think we don't have enough good CB's.But, I am all for Watkins at 4, OL at 26, and we need a RB either in the 2nd or 3rd round.I believe there are enough good ones that we can wait until round 3 and get a huge upgrade over what we currently have.
I'm on board with this draft strategy as well. Don't like the QB crop. A solid WR, bolster OL or LB position and grab Carlos Hyde if you can or a quality CB. Boyer is the starter this year, you just need to a competent backup for him. Campbell did about as well as he could, Weeden is done in the league. Draft a big QB with some upside, train him up and we're heading down the right path again.

 
We know that we might lose C Alex Mack.

Here is the market price that Mack might demand from an article written by a Jaguar beat writer who speculates whether or not the Jags should/could sign Alex Mack.

http://members.jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2014-02-08/story/jaguars-insider-jags-need-center-may-have-pay-get-one

Center should be co-Priority A along with defensive end.

Seven centers who played more than 1,000 snaps in 2013 are unrestricted free agents and none would be a better fit than Cleveland’s Alex Mack.

But at what price?

Do the Jaguars offer Mack the kind of deal Carolina gave Ryan Kalil (six years, $49 million, $19 million guaranteed) or the Jets gave Nick Mangold (seven years, $54 million, $16 million guaranteed) in 2011?

If the Jaguars gamble and drop down the next tier and offer Mack a deal similar to what Houston gave Chris Myers (four years, $25 million, $14 million guaranteed) or St. Louis gave Scott Wells (four years, $24 million, $13 million guaranteed) in 2012, Mack is unlikely to be a Jaguar.

Figure on Mack hitting the market. If Cleveland uses the franchise tag on him, it would be for a projected $11 million — all offensive linemen play under the same franchise tag even though the number is established mostly by left tackle salaries.

If the Jaguars sign Mack, they can use the aforementioned options at left guard.
I think we should make every effort to re-sign him. I don't buy the reason given by the front office, that they lump salaries together from positions and don't want to go over a certain number for a position.

Mack is in his prime. The free agents we signed last year were all under 30 years old and none of them were Pro Bowlers who hadn't missed a game. Add Mack fits the new slide-zone blocking scheme that Shanahan wants to install.

PFF did an in-depth breakdown on whether the Browns should sign either SS T.J. Ward or C Alex Mack.

They paint it as an EITHER/OR argument but we have the cap to sign both of them and they are both young and in their prime.

Go to the link:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/02/05/free-agent-duel-t-j-ward-vs-alex-mack/

Free Agent Duel: Ward vs. MackPFF Analysis Team | February 5, 2014

==============================

If we end up losing Mack I've scoured the potential free agent centers and the only name I've found is this guy and I confess that I don't know anything about him other than he's started the last 32 games in a row for New Orleans and he's only 28 years old.
http://www.neworleanssaints.com/team/roster/brian-de-la-puente/a118b970-c5c2-48d7-a38e-78f623ea0125/
Brian de la Puente
6'3
306 lbs
28 years old
4 years NFL experience

Brian de la Puente has made the most of an opportunity that started on the New Orleans practice squad in 2010 with him ascending to take over the club’s starting center duties in 2011, where he’s since started 28 games, including all 16 in 2012. Originally signed as an undrafted free agent by San Francisco in 2008, de la Puente spent part of the 2008 season on Kansas City’s active roster and has also served stints on the practice squads of Kansas City, Carolina and Seattle.
The Saints are overa barrell due to having to sign TE Jimmy Graham so they may not have enough cap left over to re-sign some ot their other guys.

I don't know a thing about Brian de la Puente but if/when we lose Mack then he's a name to file away if he is available in free agency.

 
Mack is way more valuable than Ward.
Its been painted as an EITHER/OR decision but we have the cap room to sign both and I think we should.

Its not just that both are young and Pro Bowl players in their prime. That is reason enough but their is another reason.

The Ravens only hold 4 draft picks in the 2014 draft but they expect to get up to THREE or FOUR compensentory draft selections due to losing free agents. One of them anticipated to be a 3rd round pick for losing Kruger.

If we lose Mack and then go out and sign other team's free agents then we won't get any compensentory draft picks in the future but if we spend our free agent dollars to re-sign both Ward and Mack to long term deals then in the future we won't have tons of cap space to continually go out signing free agents meanwhile losing our top young Pro Bowl talent.

I think we should look long-term on how we deal with free agents so we pattern ourselves off the Ravens where if we lose guys to free agency we wind up losing guys like a Paul Kruger type of guy who isn't a Pro Bowler but teams would over-pay to sign him thus we'd wind up getting a compensentory draft selection.

Our front office should be smart enough to start thinking long-term on everything including how to make free agency work in our favor like it works for the Ravens and other teams who leave via free agency to big contracts but they get compensentory picks to make up for the loss. We are at the point where we will start losing players because we actually have talented young players but if we lose them and sign other free agents to make up for the losses then we'll never move forward on the talent scale.

Our front office has to be smarter than only looking at the immediate cost where they lump together salaries from different positions. That is a checkers mentality when other teams are using a chess mentality.

 
Given the cap space...I think it behooves the Browns to franchise Mack if they cannot reach a long term deal. Yes, $11M is way overpriced, but it's a one year deal, when you have the space, and gives you more time to negotiate. Unless someone can tell me why this is not wise, I'll lean this way.

Regarding the Ravens, they didn't go sign anyone because they had no money. Is this not correct? They gave it all to Flacco, let people walk, traded their best WR, filled in with some depth they had and the 2013 draft. Coming off a Super Bowl win, I'm sure we'd take that. But the point is they were in cap hell and had no other choice, and went backwards on the field because of it the following year. I'm not bagging on the Ravens, but I'm also not sure this is the blueprint to follow.

 
There is no reason we should lose any of our current good players. None at all.

Unless they truly want to leave and would only stay if we severely overpay, there is just no reason to lose anyone.

 
There is no reason we should lose any of our current good players. None at all.

Unless they truly want to leave and would only stay if we severely overpay, there is just no reason to lose anyone.
that is exactly the reason we may lose one, if Ward truly wants to stay then franchise Mack. If neither do then yeah we have tochoose.
 
There is no reason we should lose any of our current good players. None at all.

Unless they truly want to leave and would only stay if we severely overpay, there is just no reason to lose anyone.
that is exactly the reason we may lose one, if Ward truly wants to stay then franchise Mack. If neither do then yeah we have tochoose.
Hey, you want 5 years 40 million?? No, I would rather go somewhere else for 5 years 30 million.

Yes folks, thats where we are at this point.

 
i'm all for trying to sign them long term, but i'm not sure i understand the reasoning behind franchising one of them.

to me, the franchise tag is most useful for a team that is currently in contention, which the Browns are not.

 
i'm all for trying to sign them long term, but i'm not sure i understand the reasoning behind franchising one of them.

to me, the franchise tag is most useful for a team that is currently in contention, which the Browns are not.
Agreed. Unless they think that by franchising the guy they can get him to change his mind at some point and maybe he wants to stay, and does a deal the following offseason, or even during the season.

Lot of times they franchise a guy because they cant get a deal worked out by the franchise deadline.

At least this year we dont have to franchise a kicker.

 
i'm all for trying to sign them long term, but i'm not sure i understand the reasoning behind franchising one of them.

to me, the franchise tag is most useful for a team that is currently in contention, which the Browns are not.
the new guys get a year to get him to buy in
 
i'm all for trying to sign them long term, but i'm not sure i understand the reasoning behind franchising one of them.

to me, the franchise tag is most useful for a team that is currently in contention, which the Browns are not.
the new guys get a year to get him to buy in
maybe?i can't think of any examples where that worked out though.
anyone from Arizona last year?
 
i'm all for trying to sign them long term, but i'm not sure i understand the reasoning behind franchising one of them.

to me, the franchise tag is most useful for a team that is currently in contention, which the Browns are not.
the new guys get a year to get him to buy in
maybe?i can't think of any examples where that worked out though.
I guess we can be the first. I mean, I can't think of any reasons NOT to franchise a guy the more I think about it.

 
Funny world we live in. Skins fans couldn't wait to get rid of Shanahan and Browns fans are excited over the hire. One thing the Panthers learn and the Browns should have learned by now, hire coaches from winning franchises.

 
RBs Edwin Baker and Fozzy Whittaker seemed to show some promise toward the end of the season, and I've heard the RB crop is pretty weak this year. I'm trying to decide if they are worth pursuing in a large dynasty format. I'd love to get thoughts on these two from fans who see their games. I don't see too many Browns games up here in Minnesota.

 
RBs Edwin Baker and Fozzy Whittaker seemed to show some promise toward the end of the season, and I've heard the RB crop is pretty weak this year. I'm trying to decide if they are worth pursuing in a large dynasty format. I'd love to get thoughts on these two from fans who see their games. I don't see too many Browns games up here in Minnesota.
Not sure about Baker, but a guy with the name Fozzy will never be on my roster.

 
RBs Edwin Baker and Fozzy Whittaker seemed to show some promise toward the end of the season, and I've heard the RB crop is pretty weak this year. I'm trying to decide if they are worth pursuing in a large dynasty format. I'd love to get thoughts on these two from fans who see their games. I don't see too many Browns games up here in Minnesota.
Doubt Whittaker makes the team next year. Baker is not a workhorse but showed enough to be a decent backup. It will be pretty shocking if they don't draft a RB. Many would like to see them take Hyde at 26 but I doubt they take any RB in the first round. If he is still there at 2.03 maybe. Also Dion Lewis comes back from injury.

Verdict: Avoid

 
RBs Edwin Baker and Fozzy Whittaker seemed to show some promise toward the end of the season, and I've heard the RB crop is pretty weak this year. I'm trying to decide if they are worth pursuing in a large dynasty format. I'd love to get thoughts on these two from fans who see their games. I don't see too many Browns games up here in Minnesota.
Compared to what the Browns have at RB the RB crop for this draft is not weak.There are at least 7 RB's who would be an upgrade over what the Browns already have.

They should be able to get a starting RB in the 3rd round with one of their two picks.

 
Funny world we live in. Skins fans couldn't wait to get rid of Shanahan and Browns fans are excited over the hire. One thing the Panthers learn and the Browns should have learned by now, hire coaches from winning franchises.
we're excited?
 
i'm all for trying to sign them long term, but i'm not sure i understand the reasoning behind franchising one of them.

to me, the franchise tag is most useful for a team that is currently in contention, which the Browns are not.
the new guys get a year to get him to buy in
maybe?i can't think of any examples where that worked out though.
anyone from Arizona last year?
can't find any info on who Arizona tagged last year.
 
i'm all for trying to sign them long term, but i'm not sure i understand the reasoning behind franchising one of them.

to me, the franchise tag is most useful for a team that is currently in contention, which the Browns are not.
the new guys get a year to get him to buy in
maybe?i can't think of any examples where that worked out though.
I guess we can be the first. I mean, I can't think of any reasons NOT to franchise a guy the more I think about it.
overpaying someone who doesn't want to be there?i can think of several reasons that's a bad idea.

 
Ray Farmer promoted to GM.

Lombardi will leave organization

Team to phase out Joe Banner in the coming months

Per Schefter

 
I wonder how this is related to the firing of Chud.

Were Lombardi and Banner mad about being forced to fire Chud?

Was Haslam annoyed Chud was fired, so he hired Lombardi/Banner?

Does Haslam just want to clean house because God told him to?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top