Josh Cribbs Is Expected To Skip Browns Minicamp
-
What he does is ST. What's market value for a ST player?
This is getting silly. As has been said a dozen times in this thread, he wants a contract that will pay him for being more involved in the offense. If Mangini really wants to use him the way he says he does, then he isnt just a ST teams player.
While we're at it, you'll have a hard time naming a ST player more valuable than him, so I guess he should at least make more than the rest of them.
This is getting silly. As has been said a dozen times in this thread, he wants a contract that will pay him for being more involved in the offense. If Mangini really wants to use him the way he says he does, then he isnt just a ST teams player.
While we're at it, you'll have a hard time naming a ST player more valuable than him, so I guess he should at least make more than the rest of them.
But he hasn't been more involved yet, so his claim of outperforming his contract doesn't hold water in respect to an EXPECTED expanded role. He had a great 2007, an average 2008.
-
I'll rephrase and you can parse that language then: Cribbs claims he got a promise from Lerner that his contract would be addressed, that he then immediately called several people to discuss that exciting news, that he has phone records of this, and there are people close to Cribbs that say it happened. Lerner says he never mentioned Cribbs' contract at all. Ever.
This is not a misunderstanding. This is someone either lying now or being intentionally deceptive at the time of the call. How this changes anything, I have no idea.
That is a vastly different statement then saying Lerner claims he never called and there are records showing he did. VASTLY different. As also stated elsewhere, it could as be as simple as miscommunication...Randy saying one thing, Josh hearing another, etc. None of us here will ever know.
That is a vastly different statement then saying Lerner claims he never called and there are records showing he did. VASTLY different. As also stated elsewhere, it could as be as simple as miscommunication...Randy saying one thing, Josh hearing another, etc. None of us here will ever know.
A miscommunication? Cribbs saying he got a specific guarantee and Lerner saying the topic never came up? Give me a break. I'm going to go out on a limb and keep discussing this as if neither Cribbs nor Lerner is mentally handicapped and they both spoke English during their phone conversation.
-
This is getting silly. As has been said a dozen times in this thread, he wants a contract that will pay him for being more involved in the offense. If Mangini really wants to use him the way he says he does, then he isnt just a ST teams player.
While we're at it, you'll have a hard time naming a ST player more valuable than him, so I guess he should at least make more than the rest of them.
But he hasn't been more involved yet, so his claim of outperforming his contract doesn't hold water in respect to an EXPECTED expanded role. He had a great 2007, an average 2008.
But he hasn't been more involved yet, so his claim of outperforming his contract doesn't hold water in respect to an EXPECTED expanded role. He had a great 2007, an average 2008.
I think he obviously outperformed his contract just with his special teams, but that isnt the point. You want him to give the Browns a year for free. That makes no sense. All I'm saying (and, according to the as yet unrefuted Taylor report, all Cribbs is saying) is that they should add incentives to his contract that pay him IF he is more involved. At this point, we're just rehashing the whole thread.
-
That is a vastly different statement then saying Lerner claims he never called and there are records showing he did. VASTLY different. As also stated elsewhere, it could as be as simple as miscommunication...Randy saying one thing, Josh hearing another, etc. None of us here will ever know.
A miscommunication? Cribbs saying he got a specific guarantee and Lerner saying the topic never came up? Give me a break. I'm going to go out on a limb and keep discussing this as if neither Cribbs nor Lerner is mentally handicapped and they both spoke English during their phone conversation.
A miscommunication? Cribbs saying he got a specific guarantee and Lerner saying the topic never came up? Give me a break. I'm going to go out on a limb and keep discussing this as if neither Cribbs nor Lerner is mentally handicapped and they both spoke English during their phone conversation.
I'm just saying a possibility that was mentioned elsewhere. A hell of a lot better than your misstatement claiming Lerner denied ever talking to him on the phone.
-
A miscommunication? Cribbs saying he got a specific guarantee and Lerner saying the topic never came up? Give me a break. I'm going to go out on a limb and keep discussing this as if neither Cribbs nor Lerner is mentally handicapped and they both spoke English during their phone conversation.
I'm just saying a possibility that was mentioned elsewhere. A hell of a lot better than your misstatement claiming Lerner denied ever talking to him on the phone.
I'm just saying a possibility that was mentioned elsewhere. A hell of a lot better than your misstatement claiming Lerner denied ever talking to him on the phone.
Except that mine was a mistake, now corrected, and yours is a farfetched opinion that youre sticking to. Congrats, you nailed me.
-
But he hasn't been more involved yet, so his claim of outperforming his contract doesn't hold water in respect to an EXPECTED expanded role. He had a great 2007, an average 2008.
I think he obviously outperformed his contract just with his special teams, but that isnt the point. You want him to give the Browns a year for free. That makes no sense. All I'm saying (and, according to the as yet unrefuted Taylor report, all Cribbs is saying) is that they should add incentives to his contract that pay him IF he is more involved. At this point, we're just rehashing the whole thread.
I think he obviously outperformed his contract just with his special teams, but that isnt the point. You want him to give the Browns a year for free. That makes no sense. All I'm saying (and, according to the as yet unrefuted Taylor report, all Cribbs is saying) is that they should add incentives to his contract that pay him IF he is more involved. At this point, we're just rehashing the whole thread.
Unless it comes from Cribbs or his agent about just wanting incentives, then it is just reports. As for outperforming his contract, that's a matter of opinion. But get off this "give the Browns a year for free" bullshit. He's getting paid to be a Cleveland Browns player. I didn't realize they wrote specific positions/roles into contracts. IF he gets a more expanded role, and does well, then his contract should be revisited. But don't give me this bullshit of playing for free, or not being paid to play a certain position.
-
Time for a name change -
Old: We need Tom Tupa
New: We need Josh Cribbs
-
I'm just saying a possibility that was mentioned elsewhere. A hell of a lot better than your misstatement claiming Lerner denied ever talking to him on the phone.
Except that mine was a mistake, now corrected, and yours is a farfetched opinion that youre sticking to. Congrats, you nailed me.
Except that mine was a mistake, now corrected, and yours is a farfetched opinion that youre sticking to. Congrats, you nailed me.
As I said and you can't comprehend, I read it elsewhere in this thread, I did not fabricate it. I only listed it once more as a possibility. But since I am not all-knowing/all-seeing such as you are, I can admit I have no idea what was said and what Cribbs wants in his contract.
-
Time for a name change -
Old: We need Tom Tupa
New: We need Josh Cribbs
Time for a name change -
Old: We need Tom Tupa
New: We need Josh Cribbs
I vote for Karnak, since he seems to be all-knowing and knows exactly what happened and what Cribbs really wants.
-
Time for a name change -
Old: We need Tom Tupa
New: We need Josh Cribbs
Time for a name change -
Old: We need Tom Tupa
New: We need Josh Cribbs
How about We need Good Players? Or We need to not dick over guys that play hard for us?
Neb, you should find a new place to play if you dont like discussions where we dont know exactly what is going on. I hate to break the news to you, but we wont have players here throughout the year telling us what goes on behind closed doors. The best information we have is his agent who says they want market value and not what Hester got, and John Taylor who says he would settle for a bunch of offensive incentives. Maybe he wants more. I'm focusing on the incentives argument because I'm on record here saying that I dont think we should give him a bunch of new guaranteed money, but that it makes perfect sense to give him incentives for taking on an expanded role, especially since he is going into his second season since being promised an improved deal. Does anyone think some incentives would be a bad deal? That's what I'm arguing for.
I think that the right thing to do is reward the people that played hard for you and were productive. I think the right thing to do is to honor promises that are made to players. I think the right thing to do is to at least enter good faith negotiations with someone who you want to take on a bigger role. I wish Cribbs wouldnt take the stance he is, but I'm not that upset considering the fact that he sat quietly all last year when mgmt promised him new talks and on the fact that all he is asking for is TALKS. What part of this do you disagree with? No one in this room would pass up the opportunity to make millions if they thought the opportunity might pass them by. This isnt a guy that is set for life. Regardless of what you may think, $3 million isnt the kind of money that makes you a rich retiree at 30. I'm not saying he's poor, but he isnt Ocho Cinco, he's not looking for ego money, this is money that makes a real difference to the way he will be able to live.
-
Time for a name change -
Old: We need Tom Tupa
New: We need Josh Cribbs
How about We need Good Players? Or We need to not dick over guys that play hard for us?
Neb, you should find a new place to play if you dont like discussions where we dont know exactly what is going on. I hate to break the news to you, but we wont have players here throughout the year telling us what goes on behind closed doors. The best information we have is his agent who says they want market value and not what Hester got, and John Taylor who says he would settle for a bunch of offensive incentives. Maybe he wants more. I'm focusing on the incentives argument because I'm on record here saying that I dont think we should give him a bunch of new guaranteed money, but that it makes perfect sense to give him incentives for taking on an expanded role, especially since he is going into his second season since being promised an improved deal. Does anyone think some incentives would be a bad deal? That's what I'm arguing for.
I think that the right thing to do is reward the people that played hard for you and were productive. I think the right thing to do is to honor promises that are made to players. I think the right thing to do is to at least enter good faith negotiations with someone who you want to take on a bigger role. I wish Cribbs wouldnt take the stance he is, but I'm not that upset considering the fact that he sat quietly all last year when mgmt promised him new talks and on the fact that all he is asking for is TALKS. What part of this do you disagree with? No one in this room would pass up the opportunity to make millions if they thought the opportunity might pass them by. This isnt a guy that is set for life. Regardless of what you may think, $3 million isnt the kind of money that makes you a rich retiree at 30. I'm not saying he's poor, but he isnt Ocho Cinco, he's not looking for ego money, this is money that makes a real difference to the way he will be able to live.
How about We need Good Players? Or We need to not dick over guys that play hard for us?
Neb, you should find a new place to play if you dont like discussions where we dont know exactly what is going on. I hate to break the news to you, but we wont have players here throughout the year telling us what goes on behind closed doors. The best information we have is his agent who says they want market value and not what Hester got, and John Taylor who says he would settle for a bunch of offensive incentives. Maybe he wants more. I'm focusing on the incentives argument because I'm on record here saying that I dont think we should give him a bunch of new guaranteed money, but that it makes perfect sense to give him incentives for taking on an expanded role, especially since he is going into his second season since being promised an improved deal. Does anyone think some incentives would be a bad deal? That's what I'm arguing for.
I think that the right thing to do is reward the people that played hard for you and were productive. I think the right thing to do is to honor promises that are made to players. I think the right thing to do is to at least enter good faith negotiations with someone who you want to take on a bigger role. I wish Cribbs wouldnt take the stance he is, but I'm not that upset considering the fact that he sat quietly all last year when mgmt promised him new talks and on the fact that all he is asking for is TALKS. What part of this do you disagree with? No one in this room would pass up the opportunity to make millions if they thought the opportunity might pass them by. This isnt a guy that is set for life. Regardless of what you may think, $3 million isnt the kind of money that makes you a rich retiree at 30. I'm not saying he's poor, but he isnt Ocho Cinco, he's not looking for ego money, this is money that makes a real difference to the way he will be able to live.
I don't need to find a new place to play. I am discussing things, am I not? I'm just not making claims to know what a player wants or who said what, based on reports by "sources". I also disagree when you use phrases like "give the Browns a free year" or "paid to play other positions". Those are bullshit phrases. He's paid to be a Cleveland Brown, he's paid the amount HE agreed to. He needs to prove to the current regime his value IF he plays an expanded role, then he would have a little more leverage to ask for a redo.
As far as all the accusations flying about, I have no idea who is right and who isn't. But I'm not going to be quick to jump on management just because a player and his new agent say its so, an agent that hasn't made any real money by representing Josh to this point. So forgive me if I see a somewhat greedy agent looking to get paid and giving bad advice to his client. But, I could be wrong, I just don't know.
You have your stance, I have mine. Its why this forum exists. Difference being, I am not making statements purporting to know who wants what and who said what. And I don't use reports from "sources" as my gospel to stand by.
-
How about We need Good Players? Or We need to not dick over guys that play hard for us?
Neb, you should find a new place to play if you dont like discussions where we dont know exactly what is going on. I hate to break the news to you, but we wont have players here throughout the year telling us what goes on behind closed doors. The best information we have is his agent who says they want market value and not what Hester got, and John Taylor who says he would settle for a bunch of offensive incentives. Maybe he wants more. I'm focusing on the incentives argument because I'm on record here saying that I dont think we should give him a bunch of new guaranteed money, but that it makes perfect sense to give him incentives for taking on an expanded role, especially since he is going into his second season since being promised an improved deal. Does anyone think some incentives would be a bad deal? That's what I'm arguing for.
I think that the right thing to do is reward the people that played hard for you and were productive. I think the right thing to do is to honor promises that are made to players. I think the right thing to do is to at least enter good faith negotiations with someone who you want to take on a bigger role. I wish Cribbs wouldnt take the stance he is, but I'm not that upset considering the fact that he sat quietly all last year when mgmt promised him new talks and on the fact that all he is asking for is TALKS. What part of this do you disagree with? No one in this room would pass up the opportunity to make millions if they thought the opportunity might pass them by. This isnt a guy that is set for life. Regardless of what you may think, $3 million isnt the kind of money that makes you a rich retiree at 30. I'm not saying he's poor, but he isnt Ocho Cinco, he's not looking for ego money, this is money that makes a real difference to the way he will be able to live.
I don't need to find a new place to play. I am discussing things, am I not? I'm just not making claims to know what a player wants or who said what, based on reports by "sources". I also disagree when you use phrases like "give the Browns a free year" or "paid to play other positions". Those are bullshit phrases. He's paid to be a Cleveland Brown, he's paid the amount HE agreed to. He needs to prove to the current regime his value IF he plays an expanded role, then he would have a little more leverage to ask for a redo.
As far as all the accusations flying about, I have no idea who is right and who isn't. But I'm not going to be quick to jump on management just because a player and his new agent say its so, an agent that hasn't made any real money by representing Josh to this point. So forgive me if I see a somewhat greedy agent looking to get paid and giving bad advice to his client. But, I could be wrong, I just don't know.
You have your stance, I have mine. Its why this forum exists. Difference being, I am not making statements purporting to know who wants what and who said what. And I don't use reports from "sources" as my gospel to stand by.
Difference being, I am not making statements purporting to know who wants what and who said what. And I don't use reports from "sources" as my gospel to stand by.
Let's make a rule that nobody is allowed to use sources here okay? We'll have a discussion once Josh and Randy get themselves logins and tell us what's going on in this thread.
-
Difference being, I am not making statements purporting to know who wants what and who said what. And I don't use reports from "sources" as my gospel to stand by.
Let's make a rule that nobody is allowed to use sources here okay? We'll have a discussion once Josh and Randy get themselves logins and tell us what's going on in this thread.
Let's make a rule that nobody is allowed to use sources here okay? We'll have a discussion once Josh and Randy get themselves logins and tell us what's going on in this thread.
Wow, reading comprehension has really taken a nosedive here.
-
Cribbs takes the blame for not winning a SB? Not the team owner that is on his 5th HC in less than a decade?
This is only the 2nd coaching hire by Randy.
This is only the 2nd coaching hire by Randy.
That's right - he only gave Butch a new contract. But that was because he earned it by leading the team to a 5-11 record. Am I remembering things wrongly?
-
Let's make a rule that nobody is allowed to use sources here okay? We'll have a discussion once Josh and Randy get themselves logins and tell us what's going on in this thread.
Wow, reading comprehension has really taken a nosedive here.
Wow, reading comprehension has really taken a nosedive here.
I'd make a nit picking, snarky, nosedive-related personal attack in return rather than adding substance to the conversation as well, but a nosedive would imply your tone had somewhere to fall from to begin with.
-
This is only the 2nd coaching hire by Randy.
That's right - he only gave Butch a new contract. But that was because he earned it by leading the team to a 5-11 record. Am I remembering things wrongly?
That's right - he only gave Butch a new contract. But that was because he earned it by leading the team to a 5-11 record. Am I remembering things wrongly?
I don't fault him for that...but if you want to, more power to you. But Butch wasn't his hire, so the statement is one of fact as compared to the statement made by the original poster.
-
Wow, reading comprehension has really taken a nosedive here.
I'd make a nit picking, snarky, nosedive-related personal attack in return rather than adding substance to the conversation as well, but a nosedive would imply your tone had somewhere to fall from to begin with.
I'd make a nit picking, snarky, nosedive-related personal attack in return rather than adding substance to the conversation as well, but a nosedive would imply your tone had somewhere to fall from to begin with.
Glad you know how to read tone into black and white text. You can be Karnak's assistant.
-
I'd make a nit picking, snarky, nosedive-related personal attack in return rather than adding substance to the conversation as well, but a nosedive would imply your tone had somewhere to fall from to begin with.
Glad you know how to read tone into black and white text. You can be Karnak's assistant.
Glad you know how to read tone into black and white text. You can be Karnak's assistant.
Thanks, why don't you start another thread for your nonsense and leave this one for a conversation regarding Josh Cribbs?
-
Glad you know how to read tone into black and white text. You can be Karnak's assistant.
Thanks, why don't you start another thread for your nonsense and leave this one for a conversation regarding Josh Cribbs?
Thanks, why don't you start another thread for your nonsense and leave this one for a conversation regarding Josh Cribbs?
Or you can do the same, you're the one that chimed in with your idiotic statement. I can't help it you that can't comprehend written words.
-
That's right - he only gave Butch a new contract. But that was because he earned it by leading the team to a 5-11 record. Am I remembering things wrongly?
I don't fault him for that...but if you want to, more power to you. But Butch wasn't his hire, so the statement is one of fact as compared to the statement made by the original poster.
I don't fault him for that...but if you want to, more power to you.
That's the point - I'm not bashing Lerner, but why be so quick to defend management who hands out raises and contract extensions to coaches etc who do a so-so job, then turn around and be so opposed to a player who has done so well for the team saying he is considering skipping OPTIONAL practices while he attempts to obtain what seems to be a reasonable goal - a mere start to meaningful negotiations in order to amend a paltry contract?
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