Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Browns release Dansby.

Browns release Dansby.

The Browns Board
84 29 2.7k
  • C Clevfan4life

    @mike-h said:

    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.

    @clevfan4life said:

    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.

    @wargograw said:

    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.

  • W wargograw

    @gumby73 said:

    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?

    @wargograw said:

    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...

    Browns & Buffett: Got to go fishin, Down to rock bottom again, with just a few Friends

  • 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 7
    Cincinnati Reds CIN 7 8
    Kansas City Royals KC 7 10
    Cleveland Indians CLE 6 9

  • Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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]

Log in to reply