AFC North Free Agency Scoreboard
-
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
-
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
-
True, Gip, but impacts of change is a lot more interesting than counting changes...
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Right... you don't add depth with Free Agents. Free Agents only become free agents because the team that knows them best throught they weren't worth re-signing... Maybe you get one or two because they've been with your OC or DC before and know the system, but for the most part you can get younger, better talent out of the draft and even with UDFAs...
-
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Agree... to a point. If you lose 6-8 veterans, hopefully you let them leave because you have guys you've developed ready to take their place in the lineup. Then, you bring in guys you hope to develop to replace the guys you've been developing. There are circumstances when you lose so many players that you need to add maybe 1 or 2 FAs, but look around at the winners... they all develop through the draft and with young talent. A "top tier" FA is only added once it is established that veteran is the piece that puts your team in contention for a title... Other FAs are only added once you recognize, during camp or preseason, that the guys you hoped to develop aren't going to get it done for you... It is a mix of both, but ideally you want to draft your talent, or at least get them on your roster while they are young and inexpensive...
Your FA for FA philosophy is like checkers... Drafting and developing talent is more like chess, you have to think 4 or 5 moves ahead...
#Justsayin' -
I couldnt agree more. Drafting is a much more viable approach. Only about 20% of all FAs are truly worth it and we really dont have a need for that 20% or they would be asking wayyy too much (DT, WR, RB). The other 80% are guys that are a bit old and we can get more long term additions through the draft. The only player remaining that we would really need is a CB (either Browner or Cox). Any other position we should consider the draf and hope we hit on them
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
Bit of a red herring since no one is arguing "all rookies"... Only saying that all FAs, which is what someone here argued, is not the way they see to go.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
As I said, replace talent with equal talent in FA....upgrade your team via the draft. I see no reason why the Browns shouldn't sign a veteran OLB/DE to replace Sheard.....but also draft an OLB/DE that you think may be better all the way around.
So, to me, you use a mix of both methods.
I for one am not willing to let 6-8 veteran player leave....and try to get rookies in to replace every one of them. Maybe a couple of slots....but not many.
Agree... to a point. If you lose 6-8 veterans, hopefully you let them leave because you have guys you've developed ready to take their place in the lineup. Then, you bring in guys you hope to develop to replace the guys you've been developing. There are circumstances when you lose so many players that you need to add maybe 1 or 2 FAs, but look around at the winners... they all develop through the draft and with young talent. A "top tier" FA is only added once it is established that veteran is the piece that puts your team in contention for a title... Other FAs are only added once you recognize, during camp or preseason, that the guys you hoped to develop aren't going to get it done for you... It is a mix of both, but ideally you want to draft your talent, or at least get them on your roster while they are young and inexpensive...
Your FA for FA philosophy is like checkers... Drafting and developing talent is more like chess, you have to think 4 or 5 moves ahead...
Agree... to a point. If you lose 6-8 veterans, hopefully you let them leave because you have guys you've developed ready to take their place in the lineup. Then, you bring in guys you hope to develop to replace the guys you've been developing. There are circumstances when you lose so many players that you need to add maybe 1 or 2 FAs, but look around at the winners... they all develop through the draft and with young talent. A "top tier" FA is only added once it is established that veteran is the piece that puts your team in contention for a title... Other FAs are only added once you recognize, during camp or preseason, that the guys you hoped to develop aren't going to get it done for you... It is a mix of both, but ideally you want to draft your talent, or at least get them on your roster while they are young and inexpensive...
Your FA for FA philosophy is like checkers... Drafting and developing talent is more like chess, you have to think 4 or 5 moves ahead...
Well, I combine them both. Like real estate. I want to do a like kind exchange using FAs.....and maybe get a little bonus for flipping. But I want to use the draft to step up in my surroundings. Think of the Jefferson's theme song "Moviin' on Up".
And think of my chess/checker playing as 3 dimensional, like this:
-
Yes, well the problem with relying on drafting is that you may be getting a pig in a poke. If you allow say 6-8 veterans of your team leave via FA....and you try to replace them all with rookies....you are playing a fool's hand for a couple of reasons: A. Because, as we certainly know, rookie draftees have a high complete bust rate....so you want a rookie bust to replace a proven vet? B. Even if that rookie is not a bust, it takes a while for a solid rookie to prove his salt.....where with a proven veteran it is not necessary to do that.
Bit of a red herring since no one is arguing "all rookies"... Only saying that all FAs, which is what someone here argued, is not the way they see to go.
Bit of a red herring since no one is arguing "all rookies"... Only saying that all FAs, which is what someone here argued, is not the way they see to go.
Well, WTF do you replace the FAs you lose with if you don't sign any other FAs to take their place besides rookies? Does Mrs. Haslam bake gingerbread men?
-
Thad Lewis signing noted.
Browns needed to keep up with the Steelers signing of Tajh Boyd.
-
Now you're being ridiculous...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Now you're being ridiculous...
You first. Where do you replace players you have lost if you don't get other FAs or rookies to replace them?
And why are you disrespecting Mrs. Haslam's baking skills?
-
-
Justin Forsett re-ups with Ravens.
Justin Forsett re-ups with Ravens.
Smart move. If they had lost him I'm not sure how they would have overcome that list of departures.
-
Browns resigning of Cameron Jordan....or is it Jordan Cameron, noted.
-
Tyrod Taylor signing by Bills away from Ravens noted.
I mean, geez, look at the wealth of QBs signed by the AFCN Josh McCown, Thad Lewis, Tyrod Taylor, Tajh Boyd.
OI!
-
Other than Jordan Cameron switch and Ravens resigning Forsett, no other AFCN activity in the last 2 days.
Polian on the radio said today would be very active, because guys would be scrambling for jobs. Supposedly now it is a "Buyer's Market"........or maybe that is just wishful thinking because he thinks like a management guy/GM.
-
You first. Where do you replace players you have lost if you don't get other FAs or rookies to replace them?
As for the FA for FA thing... I don't subscribe to it. Draft is just as viable a route for backfilling unless veteran experience adds a tangible premium, e.g., back up QB. Otherwise IMO the relative talent pools should determine which way to go.
Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood.
-
Kendrick Lewis to Ravens
Darian Stewart from Ravens
Michael Johnson to Bengals
DeAngelo Williams to Steelers
noted
-
Tramon Williams, Randy Starks signings noted.
-
Must be the St. Patrick's day holiday.....per what I have been following not a single transaction has taken place in the NFL today...at least not yet.
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