There is an argument for moving S.R. based upon his contract, although they could have waited a year. Plus we don't know if he refused to restructure or not. The other interesting question is the timing. If the Browns are going after a DT in the draft, why couldn't they wait until after the draft to do this, instead of telegraphing their need now? That's the head-scratching part for me. 

My understanding is that Hurst was put on waivers, so there are many teams that could claim him before our turn comes.

@tour2ma said:

Shocking news... and not just because we just really downgraded our DT rotation. The above tweet nails it.

This is the type of move UFAs remember when it comes time to pick an employer.

That said.... a resign at a lower price tag would not shock me. I can't help but believe we were trying to restructure SR's contract and he wasn't interested in doing so.

Now? Even if he carries a grudge, if his choice to get paid only 60 or 70% of what he was slated to make or "retire" then we could see him return.

I hope this is it. The Browns didn't want to restructure and offered him the same deal as Higgins. They told him a figure they were comfortable with and said see what other teams offer and then come back.

The only problem with this is that they could have done this when free agency started. Clowney's contract didn't put us in cap hell but cutting S.R. now sure makes it seem that way.

One thing that hasn't been talked about is that Berry has brought in guys who want to make a point. It's about pride. Clowney wants to prove he is a top tier player, Takk wants to live up to 1st round potential. Greedy & Delpit want to show what they are made of after injuries. Even Ward is motivated by it being a contract year. These are players with a lot of motivation. Statistically, not all of them will rise to the occasion but there is still a very high potential ceiling.

Wasn't Houston going to visit us? If so, it looks like a little tightening of the vice by AB may have pushed Clowney faster than he wanted. 

Clowney is visiting the Browns today.

On a separate issue, TY Hilton, like JuJu, turned down more money from the Ravens to play for another team. We are seeing one of the consequences of setting up the kind of offense which the Ravens have, with a Qb whose throwing accuracy is questioned, by receivers avoiding them like the plague. This is Lamar's 3rd year and they still don't have a #1 receiver.

@the-gipper said:

The article seems to imply that it was no coincidence.  Though maybe it could vary from team to team.    I just wonder if, when a team has to decide to make cap cuts, how do they decide?  If they have to cut maybe 3 guys, and they have  6 candidates of seemingly equal value,  maybe the opt out thing is what tipped the scale. 

Did you see these guys' bio in the article? 

One was a 5th round pick in 2017, never spent more than one season with a team, and the Raiders were his 4th team in 3 years. Another was undrafted in 2017 and was on the Lions, Dolphins and 49ers before the Raiders. He has played 13 games in his career. And the 3rd never appeared in an NFL game. He had spent time with the Colts and Packers before signing with the Raiders.

Not your gold standard players. Hell, not even a copper standard. Sounds to me that a media guy is trying to work an angle to get himself noticed.

@the-gipper said:

I don’t see that is chasing a ring I see it is chasing  the money

That's what I was implying. Maybe my posting is off still from looking at Hilton all night. And no, I don't mean Mike. ?

Glad to see he is chasing the ring. With the 49ers, Rams and Seahawks in their division the Cardinals won't smell playoffs.

@the-gipper said:

OK:    Mike Hilton.   Tell us about him,   and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.   

Well...for starters Paris' highlights video is far more impressive than Mike's.

@the-gipper said:

OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said,  More passing begets the need for more pass defenders,    except for one thing:

When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers.  And they lose games because of it,   Then what do you do?  

Think Mike Hilton.

Although the Browns do make the most sense in many ways I don't consider that there is any more knowledge about the situation than a week ago. "Browns are seriously being considered"? Of course they are. They are putting more than $10 million on the table. Any team that makes a serious offer will be seriously considered. That's different from being a favorite, however. And she most likely got her info from either the Browns, who have no idea what other teams are offering at this point, or from Watt's agent, who has an interest in having her spread the story. And wow has this story grown. Based purely on speculation.

I saw speed on defense. A lot of speed.

Hoping for the best obviously but it's possible that Baltimore and Cleveland, arguably the 2 best teams in the division, might both miss out on the playoffs, and the weakest team outside of Cincy gets in.

Not to mention that the Raiders risked a game-winning FG with a kicker who had just missed an extra point. Get the TD while you can. What a dumb-ass Gruden is.

@nickers said:

We're embarking on a playoff run and you are worried about Njoku?... C'Mon man!!!!... I'm more concerned about the D...

You're right. It's only because there seems to be a hell of a lot of team support for one another that his attitude stood out to me. It should definitely be far down on the list of worries.

I noticed that Njoku had a good PFF rating for the Giants game so props to him for that. But even up here in the nosebleed section you could tell that he's been pissed off this year at the lack of balls thrown his way. This video confirms it. Just look at how he's looking at Baker at the end of the video. I can't help but contrast that with Chubb running out of bounds and how he gets along with Hunt. 

From a talent viewpoint, and financial, he wouldn't be difficult to replace. And we don't know how he is in the locker room but he comes off like an a-hole here, imo. He could have joked with Baker and said "Hey...take a look where I was when you see the film."

I will feel better if the Raiders beat Miami on Saturday. Then we are guaranteed a spot and beating the Steelers, assuming they lose to the Colts, will be icing on the cake. Otherwise it might come down to beat the Steelers we're in, lose to them and we are out of the playoffs.

Here is an article by Brent Sobleski on Twitter where he admits that there has been enough time, i.e. games, to where it is becoming clear that the Browns are a better team without OBJ. The stats are all there, and the eye test is there also. Baker scans the field better, he throws to more receivers (9 in the first half alone against the Titans), and of course the wins are there.

The strongest argument for keeping OBJ, imo, is that it isn't OBJ not being in the lineup that has made Baker improve, it is Baker getting used to the system. But even if that's true and Baker shows that the Titans game was not an aberration but the norm my feeling is that, from a money/cap perspective and a trade value perspective, we would get more value trading OBJ than keeping him on the team.

I look at it this way. In this system does it make much sense that we pay so much $ to a guy that will catch 65 passes for 1,100 yards tops? (Because if he is catching a lot more passes than that then the balance between the receivers and the offense start to skew) And while OBJ's value is down because of his injury, imagine what his value will be next year if we find out that he IS the reason for Baker not being successful, and we decide to unload him at that time. It will be the middle of the season and teams will know that we need to unload him.

https://t.co/8xR6GRwCiq?amp=1

@orion said:

Somehow I don't see Williams' ego allowing him to take the fall for anyone.  I mean, now, who's going to hire him as a coach after that call?

Just for sake of argument I'd wonder which F.O. would hire him if he 'came clean' and said he was told by Gase (and therefore implicates the F.O.) to lose the game?