Browns release Dansby.
-
Sad Day, but still will bleed orange & brown after this blood transfusion. Good Luck Dansby, your goal line smack down @ Jets is on my Brownies video on demand. Edit--Dansby is 32? how old was Lewis at his slow down last year? Dansby would have been a FA 2018, I agree with him at the point Shasi should have put these guys out before now, but we have to see our future moves first & hell they got a vision I don't see yet..
Sad Day, but still will bleed orange & brown after this blood transfusion. Good Luck Dansby, your goal line smack down @ Jets is on my Brownies video on demand. Edit--Dansby is 32? how old was Lewis at his slow down last year? Dansby would have been a FA 2018, I agree with him at the point Shasi should have put these guys out before now, but we have to see our future moves first & hell they got a vision I don't see yet..
Karlos Dansby will be 35 in early November. IMO, he's one of those guys who has value as a free agent for a team with championship potential that just needs that one last piece.
I wish him well as he represented the Browns well on & off the field, but it seems we are moving toward a young team that will learn & grow together into a cohesive, winning unit. I'm excited about this new, different direction. We'll see.
Mike
-
Compare his statistics to that of, say, Brian Urlachers.
Dansby has always been an upper-echelon LBer, in my eyes.
I think our FO believes that "been" is the operative term in your statement.
I think our FO believes that "been" is the operative term in your statement.
Oh, I agree. I understand the move and I am glad it happened. He deserves a chance to latch on with a contender. He's put in his dues and, for the most part, has been unrecognized for them.
It would have been nice to have an experienced vet home down the fort on the interior, but not for what he costs. This works out for both parties.
-
So we're finally good in, say, 2019 (being optimistic here). JT is 35 years old. He retires. We now have a massive hole at LT and we spent $40+ million dollars from now until then to keep him around instead of letting a rookie learn the positions along with the rest of the very young roster for $10 million. There's no way you can justify keeping Joe Thomas around.
Keeping JT around could be justified in that he could act as a mentor to all of these young guys to show them how a true pro goes about his business which, in the FO's view, could be more valuable than what we could realistically get in return.
Just because we're now using analytics doesn't mean we have completely forgone what could be considered more "traditional" team building concepts, such as, in this case, retaining mentors such as McCown and JT.
Keeping JT around could be justified in that he could act as a mentor to all of these young guys to show them how a true pro goes about his business which, in the FO's view, could be more valuable than what we could realistically get in return.
Just because we're now using analytics doesn't mean we have completely forgone what could be considered more "traditional" team building concepts, such as, in this case, retaining mentors such as McCown and JT.
$12 million for mentoring? Let's just go hire some shrinks. And again, you also have to consider the opportunity cost. Because keeping JT is preventing some other kid from playing for us and learning the position.
-
Keeping JT around could be justified in that he could act as a mentor to all of these young guys to show them how a true pro goes about his business which, in the FO's view, could be more valuable than what we could realistically get in return.
Just because we're now using analytics doesn't mean we have completely forgone what could be considered more "traditional" team building concepts, such as, in this case, retaining mentors such as McCown and JT.
$12 million for mentoring? Let's just go hire some shrinks. And again, you also have to consider the opportunity cost. Because keeping JT is preventing some other kid from playing for us and learning the position.
$12 million for mentoring? Let's just go hire some shrinks. And again, you also have to consider the opportunity cost. Because keeping JT is preventing some other kid from playing for us and learning the position.
In terms of salary, we still have to hit the floor and considering the room we have and will likely have moving forward, his salary isn't going to be too much of an issue.
As for the opportunity cost, unless we're bringing in a high first rounder, whoever we bring in will benefit from either sitting behind him for a spell or playing on the right side.
I'm not sure where everyone is seeing the benefit of moving JT other than "fuck, we're rebuilding, might as well get rid of everyone because......well just because."
-
Keeping JT around could be justified in that he could act as a mentor to all of these young guys to show them how a true pro goes about his business which, in the FO's view, could be more valuable than what we could realistically get in return.
Just because we're now using analytics doesn't mean we have completely forgone what could be considered more "traditional" team building concepts, such as, in this case, retaining mentors such as McCown and JT.
$12 million for mentoring? Let's just go hire some shrinks. And again, you also have to consider the opportunity cost. Because keeping JT is preventing some other kid from playing for us and learning the position.
Let's just go hire some shrinks.
hmmm if only it worked like that. Alas it doesn't. 12m is nothing to keep around a perennial top 5 LT and someone who grooms the next set of Browns lineman. Unfortunately it is time to trade him while he has value. If this was 3 years ago i would be adamantly against it cause JT could still be around then once things turn around. But fact is he likely won't be in 3-4 years which is when this rebuild "might" see some semblance of competitiveness. As it stands the guy deserves to be traded to a contender.
-
Getting rid of JT would be a mistake, unless of course he asks to be traded. They are making some drastic changes, but removing a franchise player during the midst of a massive overhaul would not sit well with the consumers/fans. They need to sell tickets, and in order to do that, they cannot fully burn it to the ground.
Plus, I don't want Josh McCown to die.
-
Getting rid of JT would be a mistake, unless of course he asks to be traded. They are making some drastic changes, but removing a franchise player during the midst of a massive overhaul would not sit well with the consumers/fans. They need to sell tickets, and in order to do that, they cannot fully burn it to the ground.
Plus, I don't want Josh McCown to die.
Getting rid of JT would be a mistake, unless of course he asks to be traded. They are making some drastic changes, but removing a franchise player during the midst of a massive overhaul would not sit well with the consumers/fans. They need to sell tickets, and in order to do that, they cannot fully burn it to the ground.
these guys aren't gonna sell no tickets. None of them. Big JT fan but no LT is getting people to re up their season ticks. The whole team needs to be "strategically" burned to the ground. You don't offload all of them for shit.
-
$12 million for mentoring? Let's just go hire some shrinks. And again, you also have to consider the opportunity cost. Because keeping JT is preventing some other kid from playing for us and learning the position.
In terms of salary, we still have to hit the floor and considering the room we have and will likely have moving forward, his salary isn't going to be too much of an issue.
As for the opportunity cost, unless we're bringing in a high first rounder, whoever we bring in will benefit from either sitting behind him for a spell or playing on the right side.
I'm not sure where everyone is seeing the benefit of moving JT other than "fuck, we're rebuilding, might as well get rid of everyone because......well just because."
In terms of salary, we still have to hit the floor and considering the room we have and will likely have moving forward, his salary isn't going to be too much of an issue.
As for the opportunity cost, unless we're bringing in a high first rounder, whoever we bring in will benefit from either sitting behind him for a spell or playing on the right side.
I'm not sure where everyone is seeing the benefit of moving JT other than "fuck, we're rebuilding, might as well get rid of everyone because......well just because."
I think it's an indication of true commitment to their plan.
I'm not so convinced the switch between tackle positions is as easy as people think it is. I mean, these guys play out of a two-point stance all the time. You literally have to do the exact opposite of what you're used to do doing. So IMO, it's better to just let the kid play LT.
-
So we're finally good in, say, 2019 (being optimistic here). JT is 35 years old. He retires. We now have a massive hole at LT and we spent $40+ million dollars from now until then to keep him around instead of letting a rookie learn the positions along with the rest of the very young roster for $10 million. There's no way you can justify keeping Joe Thomas around. Warp
********************************************
It's 2016. You're saying trade JT now, which is nonsense, to me. You can draft a developmental LT,
let him learn behind JT for a year or two, and then Joe Thomas can retire if he wants to. You can't just trade JT,
and NOW leave a gigantic hole in the line, then spend one of your first two picks on a LT that surely won't be
able to step in and take his place immediately. There's no way you can truly justify letting JT go... unless
Joe wants to change direction and be traded and have a chance at the superbowl before he retires.
No, you keep Joe, and draft Wentz at #2, draft defense the 32 pick - maybe Kamlei Correa 3-4 LB...or Darian Thompson FS, and maybe
Haeg, Wentz's terrific LT from N. Dakota State,,,,, in the third pick. Because, even the Patriots are seriously
looking at Haeg.
http://musketfire.com/2016/02/28/2016-nfl-draft-patriots-profile-joe-haeg/
-
With the new regime in place it seems the front office thought Dansby was overpaid and they're looking to get younger. I wonder how forgiving the Cards are?
-
So we're finally good in, say, 2019 (being optimistic here). JT is 35 years old. He retires. We now have a massive hole at LT and we spent $40+ million dollars from now until then to keep him around instead of letting a rookie learn the positions along with the rest of the very young roster for $10 million. There's no way you can justify keeping Joe Thomas around. Warp
********************************************
It's 2016. You're saying trade JT now, which is nonsense, to me. You can draft a developmental LT,
let him learn behind JT for a year or two, and then Joe Thomas can retire if he wants to. You can't just trade JT,
and NOW leave a gigantic hole in the line, then spend one of your first two picks on a LT that surely won't be
able to step in and take his place immediately. There's no way you can truly justify letting JT go... unless
Joe wants to change direction and be traded and have a chance at the superbowl before he retires.
No, you keep Joe, and draft Wentz at #2, draft defense the 32 pick - maybe Kamlei Correa 3-4 LB...or Darian Thompson FS, and maybe
Haeg, Wentz's terrific LT from N. Dakota State,,,,, in the third pick. Because, even the Patriots are seriously
looking at Haeg.
http://musketfire.com/2016/02/28/2016-nfl-draft-patriots-profile-joe-haeg/
So we're finally good in, say, 2019 (being optimistic here). JT is 35 years old. He retires. We now have a massive hole at LT and we spent $40+ million dollars from now until then to keep him around instead of letting a rookie learn the positions along with the rest of the very young roster for $10 million. There's no way you can justify keeping Joe Thomas around. Warp
********************************************
It's 2016. You're saying trade JT now, which is nonsense, to me. You can draft a developmental LT,
let him learn behind JT for a year or two, and then Joe Thomas can retire if he wants to. You can't just trade JT,
and NOW leave a gigantic hole in the line, then spend one of your first two picks on a LT that surely won't be
able to step in and take his place immediately. There's no way you can truly justify letting JT go... unless
Joe wants to change direction and be traded and have a chance at the superbowl before he retires.
No, you keep Joe, and draft Wentz at #2, draft defense the 32 pick - maybe Kamlei Correa 3-4 LB...or Darian Thompson FS, and maybe
Haeg, Wentz's terrific LT from N. Dakota State,,,,, in the third pick. Because, even the Patriots are seriously
looking at Haeg.
http://musketfire.com/2016/02/28/2016-nfl-draft-patriots-profile-joe-haeg/
You lament a rookie not being able to fill Joe's shoes "immediately" as if we care about winning immediately. WE DON'T. If we can get a 1st and a 3rd for him (which IIRC is what Denver offered and Farmer declined), then you use the 1st on another lineman, you have an extra 3rd (and that's valuable in a rebuild), and you use the cash savings to bring in someone good. Or you get someone good in the deal.
-
I'd hate to see Thomas go, but I have to admit that it makes sense now.
If the Browns can get a first for him, I say do it.
That is of course, if he wants to go.
-
Name me a winner in the top 20 that JT would agree to go to? Last word from JT "the FO won't ask to move me". If & only if Joe T. agrees to trade, you got to think he will have say on where he will go & your top 4 LT's our gone by 20... Good Luck.. #73
Name me a winner in the top 20 that JT would agree to go to? Last word from JT "the FO won't ask to move me". If & only if Joe T. agrees to trade, you got to think he will have say on where he will go & your top 4 LT's our gone by 20... Good Luck.. #73
Why exactly does he get to make the call on this? As awesome as he's been, he still works for us. We own his rights. We tell him what to do and if that means leaving, then he's leaving.
To answer your question (though I'm not sure why we have to limit it to the top 20): Indianapolis, New York Jets, Buffalo, Atlanta, Miami. All teams much closer to a championship than we are. You seem to know exactly where Joe will and won't agree to play. How?
-
You lament a rookie not being able to fill Joe's shoes "immediately" as if we care about winning immediately. WE DON'T. If we can get a 1st and a 3rd for him (which IIRC is what Denver offered and Farmer declined), then you use the 1st on another lineman, you have an extra 3rd (and that's valuable in a rebuild), and you use the cash savings to bring in someone good. Or you get someone good in the deal.Warp
************************
You -should- care about not getting your qb killed. A rookie that can be all pro like Joe is rare to find.
So, you would trade him for a first, and use that first for a LT. That is going backwards, especially if you
draft a guy not really ready to start. You ruin your locker room. You ruin the veteran leadership on your oline.
Bitonio will start struggling vs a rookie on the left side. You trade Joe, and what veteran will ever want to come here,
that can easily go somewhere else? I guess if you believe you can play football with Wentz with an oline
that can't play, it might make some kind of sense. It's one thing to go younger, it's another to screw up
your fanbase, your locker room, and the blind side protection of your newly drafted qb. We'll see how it goes.
-
The biggest myth in Cleveland is that if you don't have a hall of famer at left tackle that you're allowing your QB to get killed. Somehow, at least 20 or so other teams per year manage to pull it off but I guess we can't.
We just waived one of the best linebackers in the league. If that kind of thing is something that's going to "ruin" the locker room, then that ship has already sailed.
We're building with the draft, not with bringing in veterans. Veterans know that they won't win a championship if they come here. Our ability to lure free agents is as low as it's ever been. Trading Joe Thomas is not going to bring it down any further.
You're right, using a first on another LT is in fact going backwards. Backwards about 10 years. And that seems to be that goal of our FO....
-
Joe Thomas is a popular locker room presence, and a leader.
They did let the lb go, but that lb is happy to go where he can have
a chance to win.
Teams all over the NFL are looking for good left tackles. That's why
so often, they
DRAFT THEM in the first round, and HIGH.
Panthers - their LT is Oher, who was a first round pick by Balt. Eighth season.
Denver - their LT is a second rounder, they are trying desperately to upgrade their offensive line.
you just don't replace a Joe Thomas just because you get a 1st round draft pick for him.
and, that linebacker didn't have responsibility to keep the qb from getting broken into pieces.
-
In terms of salary, we still have to hit the floor and considering the room we have and will likely have moving forward, his salary isn't going to be too much of an issue.
As for the opportunity cost, unless we're bringing in a high first rounder, whoever we bring in will benefit from either sitting behind him for a spell or playing on the right side.
I'm not sure where everyone is seeing the benefit of moving JT other than "fuck, we're rebuilding, might as well get rid of everyone because......well just because."
I think it's an indication of true commitment to their plan.
I'm not so convinced the switch between tackle positions is as easy as people think it is. I mean, these guys play out of a two-point stance all the time. You literally have to do the exact opposite of what you're used to do doing. So IMO, it's better to just let the kid play LT.
Here's the funny thing... we're going to end up with an offense that needs a scrambling QB...
I think it's an indication of true commitment to their plan.
I'm not so convinced the switch between tackle positions is as easy as people think it is. I mean, these guys play out of a two-point stance all the time. You literally have to do the exact opposite of what you're used to do doing. So IMO, it's better to just let the kid play LT.
Totally agree... and you're correct. Flipping OT slots is far from a given.
You lament a rookie not being able to fill Joe's shoes "immediately" as if we care about winning immediately. WE DON'T. If we can get a 1st and a 3rd for him (which IIRC is what Denver offered and Farmer declined), then you use the 1st on another lineman, you have an extra 3rd (and that's valuable in a rebuild), and you use the cash savings to bring in someone good. Or you get someone good in the deal.
I'd only point out that it would be nice to have a little bit of a track record on our new FO's draft aptitude before we start trading away our remaining "stars" for picks.
Plenty of time to do that pre-deadline 2016 to a contender who just lost their LT or CB to injury...
-
So we're finally good in, say, 2019 (being optimistic here). JT is 35 years old. He retires. We now have a massive hole at LT and we spent $40+ million dollars from now until then to keep him around instead of letting a rookie learn the positions along with the rest of the very young roster for $10 million. There's no way you can justify keeping Joe Thomas around. Warp
********************************************
It's 2016. You're saying trade JT now, which is nonsense, to me. You can draft a developmental LT,
let him learn behind JT for a year or two, and then Joe Thomas can retire if he wants to. You can't just trade JT,
and NOW leave a gigantic hole in the line, then spend one of your first two picks on a LT that surely won't be
able to step in and take his place immediately. There's no way you can truly justify letting JT go... unless
Joe wants to change direction and be traded and have a chance at the superbowl before he retires.
No, you keep Joe, and draft Wentz at #2, draft defense the 32 pick - maybe Kamlei Correa 3-4 LB...or Darian Thompson FS, and maybe
Haeg, Wentz's terrific LT from N. Dakota State,,,,, in the third pick. Because, even the Patriots are seriously
looking at Haeg.
http://musketfire.com/2016/02/28/2016-nfl-draft-patriots-profile-joe-haeg/
You lament a rookie not being able to fill Joe's shoes "immediately" as if we care about winning immediately. WE DON'T. If we can get a 1st and a 3rd for him (which IIRC is what Denver offered and Farmer declined), then you use the 1st on another lineman, you have an extra 3rd (and that's valuable in a rebuild), and you use the cash savings to bring in someone good. Or you get someone good in the deal.
You lament a rookie not being able to fill Joe's shoes "immediately" as if we care about winning immediately. WE DON'T. If we can get a 1st and a 3rd for him (which IIRC is what Denver offered and Farmer declined), then you use the 1st on another lineman, you have an extra 3rd (and that's valuable in a rebuild), and you use the cash savings to bring in someone good. Or you get someone good in the deal.[/quote
I have to agree on a few points others have made. JT will be 35 when his current deal runs out.
He deserves to play for a winner! That isn't here! If he is agreeable to a trade. His value is at
a minimum a 1st and a 3rd. Possibly a 1st and 2nd..but lets not be greedy??!! Our own mock had all top 5 tackles available till at least pick #23!!! I say if Joe is in!!! You have to give JT his shot
at a championship! Take the best OT with the 2nd 1st rounder and we also have maybe an extra 2nd
or 3rd!!! GO JOE...GO BROWNS!!!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login