Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

What are you ok spending for Pryor?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MWil23


Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 6122
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

buno67 wrote:
Like said, it sucks losing players but when you are losing players from a 1-15 team, 2-14 team, 3-13 team, is it that great of a lose?

When they are guys to build around like Schwartz, Mack, and Pryor, then yes. While some like Mack had 1 foot out the door, not only do you lose a quality starter (2 Pro Bowlers in Mack/Schwartz), but now you've also created huge holes on an already weak roster that you will need to address with at least 2 draft picks or very quality free agents, probably worse than guys you've let walk.

Also you have a WR who can be viewed as an equal to Pryor come in here and sign the contract he didn't want.

I don't care what the numbers show, Britt isn't as good and has been an NFL WR for 7 years now, while TP has for a little over a year. Pryor has a lot more upside than Britt and already a year in this system in Cleveland. I'll hold off on my verdict on the Pryor situation until late this season, but right now it's a little frustrating from an emotional standpoint. Britt is FAR from a #1 WR in this league, even at his "best" in 2016.

So is that players not wanting to be here?

In cases like Mack, yes. In cases like Pryor/Schwartz, it's hard to know without personally being in the FO if they're leveraging us for contracts or genuinely want to be here. Anyone who says otherwise is speculating.

Also can't call the FO being cheap when they just gave Collins his deal, made two huge signings for the OL, signed Britt, and gave Bitonio a nice extension.

Agree 100% with this.

What the FO did outside of Pryor was fantastic. Sucks they couldn't keep Pryor but they were skeptical about him. Other franchises were too. No one wanted to pay him the money he was demanding. He was demanding one year deals showing teams he wants to play one year and then seek another contract from someone else. Browns were willing to pay but only for a multi year deal but Pryor wanted the one year deal so he can get more money from the brow a next year or from the highest bidder again.

The only fault I have in this entire situation is our guys not using the Franchise Tag, especially after signing Collins. I'd have ponied up an extra $6 million (they offered him 8 and he would have gotten 14) for a 1 year engagement.

Browns don't pay him they are cheap, other teams won't pay him they look fine.

Unfortunately this is because of past Browns regimes being completely inept, so that's how this franchise will be viewed (for right or for wrong) until they change the culture, and that means hitting on draft picks and winning games.

Pryor leaving is on the pryor as much as the Browns. Yeah browns could of kept him with the tag but they didn't want him for one year.

Which doesn't make sense. You let a guy go for nothing but you're willing to sign him to a long term deal? That means that they wanted him on the cheap. See above.

Browns arnt in the market for signing talent for one year deals. Like you said they are trying to build something and change the culture. Bring players or resigning players for one year deals arnt going to be beneficial for the Browns unless they are to unproven players like Pryor was last year.

Which makes a lot of sense, but every time we let guys go we just create more voids, holes, and depth concerns that will be addressed via the draft. If they think Kenny Britt is a #1 WR in this league they are 100% wrong. Whatever he's going to be he's already shown on the greater part of the last decade. He's at best a #2 and guy that can move the chains on 3rd down on crossing routes.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
buno67


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 40129
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MWil23 wrote:
buno67 wrote:
Like said, it sucks losing players but when you are losing players from a 1-15 team, 2-14 team, 3-13 team, is it that great of a lose?

When they are guys to build around like Schwartz, Mack, and Pryor, then yes. While some like Mack had 1 foot out the door, not only do you lose a quality starter (2 Pro Bowlers in Mack/Schwartz), but now you've also created huge holes on an already weak roster that you will need to address with at least 2 draft picks or very quality free agents, probably worse than guys you've let walk.

Was RT a huge hole or did it look like a huge whole because there was was crap or injuries at LG, C, and RG? Apparently it could of been the issues at center and RG since the FO only addressed those issues this off season. Maybe they address RT later on.

Also you have a WR who can be viewed as an equal to Pryor come in here and sign the contract he didn't want.

I don't care what the numbers show, Britt isn't as good and has been an NFL WR for 7 years now, while TP has for a little over a year. Pryor has a lot more upside than Britt and already a year in this system in Cleveland. I'll hold off on my verdict on the Pryor situation until late this season, but right now it's a little frustrating from an emotional standpoint. Britt is FAR from a #1 WR in this league, even at his "best" in 2016.

maybe I have come around on the Britt train. Britt could of put up numbers like Pryor in years past if he was force feed the ball like Pryor was. I also didnt know Britt was as big as he is. I thought he was a 5'11-6 WR when he is 6'3

So is that players not wanting to be here?

In cases like Mack, yes. In cases like Pryor/Schwartz, it's hard to know without personally being in the FO if they're leveraging us for contracts or genuinely want to be here. Anyone who says otherwise is speculating.

I agree its all speculation

What the FO did outside of Pryor was fantastic. Sucks they couldn't keep Pryor but they were skeptical about him. Other franchises were too. No one wanted to pay him the money he was demanding. He was demanding one year deals showing teams he wants to play one year and then seek another contract from someone else. Browns were willing to pay but only for a multi year deal but Pryor wanted the one year deal so he can get more money from the brow a next year or from the highest bidder again.

The only fault I have in this entire situation is our guys not using the Franchise Tag, especially after signing Collins. I'd have ponied up an extra $6 million (they offered him 8 and he would have gotten 14) for a 1 year engagement.

Again,I dont think the FO wanted to give him a one year deal. Franchise tag or not. It prolly became well known that he wanted a 1 year deal so he could potentially cash in the following year


Browns don't pay him they are cheap, other teams won't pay him they look fine.

Unfortunately this is because of past Browns regimes being completely inept, so that's how this franchise will be viewed (for right or for wrong) until they change the culture, and that means hitting on draft picks and winning games.

exactly and right now the FO is changing their national view. That Brock trade was a huge step in it. A lot of media people applauded the Browns for making that move. It could be huge if some how brock turns out into a real QB here if they keep him.


Pryor leaving is on the pryor as much as the Browns. Yeah browns could of kept him with the tag but they didn't want him for one year.

Which doesn't make sense. You let a guy go for nothing but you're willing to sign him to a long term deal? That means that they wanted him on the cheap. See above.

Means they didnt want him on the cheap. They just maybe knew their intentions for next year and that he might not be worth it and it be better to give the other guys a chance.

Browns arnt in the market for signing talent for one year deals. Like you said they are trying to build something and change the culture. Bring players or resigning players for one year deals arnt going to be beneficial for the Browns unless they are to unproven players like Pryor was last year.


_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duke2056


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8992
Location: Cleveland area
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buno I can't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing with everything I have been saying, lol.

Yes we paid some guys, but we overpaid. Nobody is taking a hometown discount, or even coming if for the SAME money.

What I am saying is we need to CHANGE that. People keep saying the Patriot's model, but the top franchises don't have to overpay. We do. For right now, we do. That is just the cold hard facts of it. If/when we become a halfway decent team it will help us land guy for market value.
Right now we are at a competitive disadvantage.

The Patriots model does not work for us YET.
_________________
3/18/17 predictions:
Jimmy G stays with New England this year.
We draft Garrett at #1 (out on a limb there).
We trade back from 12 for another 2018 1st.
We do NOT draft a QB in the first 2 rounds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ditchdigger


Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 19560
Location: Gahanna, OH
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

duke2056 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:
duke2056 wrote:
buno67 wrote:


If he wanted to stay in Cleveland, they never would of left to hear what other teams offer.





Right. If he wanted to stay, he woulda stayed. That is pretty much my point. Right now guys do not want to come here or stay here. Some do, sure When we pay up, meaning pay MORE


It seems as though you are trying to blame the front office for what has been an ongoing issue for 17+ years now.

This front office is trying to establish itself as not doing business the same as has been done in the past, and I think they realize that quite a lot of free agents have used the Browns in the past to pad their account either by signing here or taking our offer to other teams.

This front office determines your role, makes an offer, and if you don't take it, they move on to the next plan rather than desperately throwing cash around to retain guys who don't even want to play here.

I see it as a welcome change. Do you ever see New England being held hostage in contact negotiations? No, you don't.

Now the question is, are they that way in free agency because they are a successful team, or are they a successful team because they are that way in free agency? Case can be made for both sides, but it seems like our front office is betting on the latter.


Answer this question. Would players rather play in New England or Cleveland?

That should answer the question as to whether their current ways made them a great team or KEEP them a great team.

I love how the Pats do things, but we can not do it that way until players WANT to come here.

The question is, what do we need to do to get players to want to play here? I am not sure penny pinching right NOW is the best way to get that done.

No, I a not blaming the front office for the failures of the 17 years prior, however, I am blaming them for losing some guys they really should have kept.


Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duke2056


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8992
Location: Cleveland area
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ditchdigger wrote:

Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.


So if we get the "lower end suitors" every year, how exactly are we supposed to overcome that competitive disadvantage?
_________________
3/18/17 predictions:
Jimmy G stays with New England this year.
We draft Garrett at #1 (out on a limb there).
We trade back from 12 for another 2018 1st.
We do NOT draft a QB in the first 2 rounds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiwibrown


Joined: 01 May 2006
Posts: 3165
Location: NZ
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

duke2056 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:

Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.


So if we get the "lower end suitors" every year, how exactly are we supposed to overcome that competitive disadvantage?


New England does a lot by committee, WR, RB.

5 decent to good offensive linemen

high quality defensive players in many spots.
_________________
I survived Johannesburg, 2013.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duke2056


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8992
Location: Cleveland area
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kiwibrown wrote:
duke2056 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:

Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.


So if we get the "lower end suitors" every year, how exactly are we supposed to overcome that competitive disadvantage?


New England does a lot by committee, WR, RB.

5 decent to good offensive linemen

high quality defensive players in many spots.


Yes I get that, but of the pool of players to choose from, the guys we want the most (aka the BETTER players) are going to other teams.
_________________
3/18/17 predictions:
Jimmy G stays with New England this year.
We draft Garrett at #1 (out on a limb there).
We trade back from 12 for another 2018 1st.
We do NOT draft a QB in the first 2 rounds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ditchdigger


Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 19560
Location: Gahanna, OH
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

duke2056 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:

Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.


So if we get the "lower end suitors" every year, how exactly are we supposed to overcome that competitive disadvantage?


Draft well. Make smart trades. Manage your cap.

Virtually the opposite of everything we've been doing prior to Sashi being put in charge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ditchdigger


Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 19560
Location: Gahanna, OH
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ditchdigger wrote:
duke2056 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:

Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.


So if we get the "lower end suitors" every year, how exactly are we supposed to overcome that competitive disadvantage?


Draft well. Make smart trades. Manage your cap.

Virtually the opposite of everything we've been doing prior to Sashi being put in charge.


More importantly, find the QB. That will change the perception from afar more than anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bonanza23


Joined: 10 Nov 2008
Posts: 11192
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ditchdigger wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:
duke2056 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:

Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.


So if we get the "lower end suitors" every year, how exactly are we supposed to overcome that competitive disadvantage?


Draft well. Make smart trades. Manage your cap.

Virtually the opposite of everything we've been doing prior to Sashi being put in charge.


More importantly, find the QB. That will change the perception from afar more than anything.


Yep.com. It's quite simple if we don't start drafting properly we'll continue to suck. If we don't get a QB we'll continue to suck just as badly. Signing FAs to more than we should money is a recipe for disaster and no sustainability. If we prove we can draft along with the players love of Hue we can build this thing into something.

Patience people it looks like we may have a system.
_________________

Thanks Reg!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duke2056


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8992
Location: Cleveland area
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said to keep overspending and signing guys. I said to do it a few times NOW so that we can get better FASTER so that we won't have to overspend in the FUTURE.

I am trying to speed up when that future happens by a year or two is all.

More importantly, retain our own players who we KNOW are good in our system. That is vital.
_________________
3/18/17 predictions:
Jimmy G stays with New England this year.
We draft Garrett at #1 (out on a limb there).
We trade back from 12 for another 2018 1st.
We do NOT draft a QB in the first 2 rounds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaWg_LB.


Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 6093
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ditchdigger wrote:
duke2056 wrote:
buno67 wrote:


If he wanted to stay in Cleveland, they never would of left to hear what other teams offer.





Right. If he wanted to stay, he woulda stayed. That is pretty much my point. Right now guys do not want to come here or stay here. Some do, sure When we pay up, meaning pay MORE


It seems as though you are trying to blame the front office for what has been an ongoing issue for 17+ years now.

This front office is trying to establish itself as not doing business the same as has been done in the past, and I think they realize that quite a lot of free agents have used the Browns in the past to pad their account either by signing here or taking our offer to other teams.


This front office determines your role, makes an offer, and if you don't take it, they move on to the next plan rather than desperately throwing cash around to retain guys who don't even want to play here.

I see it as a welcome change. Do you ever see New England being held hostage in contact negotiations? No, you don't.

Now the question is, are they that way in free agency because they are a successful team, or are they a successful team because they are that way in free agency? Case can be made for both sides, but it seems like our front office is betting on the latter.




Damnit Man....its like your inside my head, expressing my thoughts for me!!!

From a business standpoint....from a GENERAL organizational point of view.....if your not running a successful organization...your dont START to adopt the GOOD business practices of a successful organization, when you become successful.....your adopt those practices NOW and use that to HELP you become successful.....in the long run.....not a spike year here and there (see the year we went 10-6 and missed the playoffs)...
_________________
-A team is built through the Draft.

Second Ballot Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DizzyDean


Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 440
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bonanza23 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:
duke2056 wrote:
ditchdigger wrote:

Fair question, but it is never really an either/or question in free agency. Every player has a different group of suitors. The best way for them to "buy in" at market value is to have a clear plan in place and show each potential signee the benefit of being a part of it for the price we are offering. If that's not good enough, you go to the next best available option.

If a guy like Terrelle doesn't buy in to the plan, they find a guy like Kenny to fill his spot.

The plan is there for long-term success, and deviating from it in year two will do more harm long-term than good short-term.


So if we get the "lower end suitors" every year, how exactly are we supposed to overcome that competitive disadvantage?


Draft well. Make smart trades. Manage your cap.

Virtually the opposite of everything we've been doing prior to Sashi being put in charge.


More importantly, find the QB. That will change the perception from afar more than anything.


Yep.com. It's quite simple if we don't start drafting properly we'll continue to suck. If we don't get a QB we'll continue to suck just as badly. Signing FAs to more than we should money is a recipe for disaster and no sustainability. If we prove we can draft along with the players love of Hue we can build this thing into something.

Patience people it looks like we may have a system.


https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/153/797/4_3797153.jpg

Yeah, but sometimes those big time contracts work out well for us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
H2ThaIzzo


Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 5444
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

people can look at Britt's career numbers and make arguments that his potential isn't what TP's is. Or that he's an average WR. They can shoot down the comments regarding Britt playing with arguably the worst group of QB's a WR has ever gotten to play with by saying the same about Pryor's one full season as a WR. Something that can't be debated, however...targets. It's hard for a WR to accumulate statistics if the QB isn't throwing to them, or the coach isn't calling plays for them. Dude played for Tennessee for years. Tennessee had Chris Johnson as RB, who they weighed heavily on in football games. He's also never had a chance to play for a coach that values the passing game. The guy blocks, and does it well. He plays football the way we want players to play. He's fearless going after a catch. If we give him the same attention in the offense that we gave to Pryor, he's going to go for 1300 yards next season.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Samithe03


Joined: 05 Apr 2017
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:33 am    Post subject: Re: What are you ok spending for Pryor? Reply with quote

duke2056 wrote:
I was looking around for some discussion on this and didn't see anything, so sorry for starting a thread if there is already good discussion going on this.

I personally think they should have tagged him UNLESS they know for sure he will command about 10 million per year paris taxi Airport or less AND that they know for sure they are going to resign him.

With as much cap room as we have with no way in hell we are going to approach the salary cap this year, I think franchising or transition tagging would have made a lot of sense, probably the transition tag.

But since we didn't................I say go with 4 years 40 million and take a chance. I prefer not to lose him and look stupid, plus I think he is a good enough player to overpay for a few years.

Hello, I think that they have not to spend anything for him
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group