Browns release Dansby.
-
$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!!!
-
you just don't replace a Joe Thomas just because you get a 1st round draft pick for him.
Of course not. But of course that's not my position.
You forgot the third. And the fact that he's old. And we're rebuilding.
I think lots of you have an emotional attachment to Joe Thomas. I understand that. But it's hurting our team.
-
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.
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.
I'd love to know just how many season ticket holders re-uped after our stellar 3-13 season. Incidentally, the commitment demand from the Browns arrived before the fire sale started. I'm taking a wait & see on how things unfold over the next few months- but right now, I'm not feeling the Browns are headed in the right direction.
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....
If they're going to build through the draft- I have some news for them. They unloaded five starters, plus a key ST player. Lotsa luck if the FO thinks they're going to be able to not only get five starters out of the upcoming draft- but quality starters that are upgrades at the respective positions. Should I mention QBOTF is also a priority? Welcome to 0-16.
From NFL.com-
"Cleveland's next quarterback: We're posting this long before the draft, so plenty can change. That said, whoever starts at quarterback for the Browns is bound to be saddled by a roster with more holes than last year's three-win outfit. With center Alex Mack, right tackle Mitchell Schwartz and deep-threat Travis Benjamin all signing elsewhere, the Browns are nowhere close to fielding a competent offense. Cleveland's new coaching staff and front office inherited a mess that will take years to steer out of."
Even if Gordon gets reinstated, his deep routes are worthless, with our QB running for his life after 2 seconds.
-
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?
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?
Your opinion to take a 1st & 3rd for JT & take a LM with the 1st rder. Gets you nothing compared to a JT even now, unless your picking maybe in top 15 again of this draft. We have a Erving, no C & no RT either. I don't see our FO offering up the only anchor we have left to rebuild a OL, unless JT says he wants out. Not sure on a no trade clause in JT contract that he must waive, but he just got another 1M contract increase that tells me that Shasi is sticking to his word of not trading JT. JT has said nothing to them either. #73 in gumby has been around since JT's days at Wisconsin. He's my absolute favorite player playing on my favorite team. I got to keep the faith he stays...
-
Of course not. But of course that's not my position.
You forgot the third. And the fact that he's old. And we're rebuilding.
I think lots of you have an emotional attachment to Joe Thomas. I understand that. But it's hurting our team. Warp*******************************
I did not forget about the third. You want to get a first for Joe Thomas, and draft another LT. Who could be a bust,
get your QB you surely just drafted at #2, and then you have to play somebody there that won't anchor the line,
and you're more a laughingstock than they already are. Another third round pick is fine, except you lost your
outstanding anchor lockerroom leader LT in your trade. It's up to JOE to decide he wants to go elsewhere, not you.
And what message do you send your team? Work your ass off to be great, become great, and just before you could start winning, they'll use your accomplishment to get draft picks?
That's Cleveland Indians all over. Got rid of all their star players, and went with youth that didn't cost much.
It didn't accomplish much.
MLB Spring Training Standings - 2016
W L Chicago White Sox CHW 7 7Cincinnati Reds CIN 7 8Kansas City Royals KC 7 10Cleveland Indians CLE 6 9 -
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(Redirected from Throw out the baby with the bath water)Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is an idiomatic expression and a concept[1] used to suggest an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad,[2] or in other words, rejecting the essential along with the inessential.[3]
A slightly different explanation suggests that this flexible catchphrase has to do with discarding the essential while retaining the superfluous because of excessive zeal.[4] In other words, the idiom is applicable not only when throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but also when someone might throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.[5]
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