Jump to content

Why shouldn’t there be another purge?


Philc1

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

I believe the Browns own all the rights to previous records. It's not an Oilers/Titans scenario.

To say that the former Cleveland Browns (Ravens) organization, is the same organization as the current Cleveland Browns organization is like saying your dad divorced your mom, your mom marries your uncle, and you say your uncle is your new blood father.

It just isn't so and defies logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Not sure why that matters. Take Namath away from this organization and we are Cleveland.

Not sure why the HUGE time gap doesn’t matter? 

Think you just like to argue with everyone about literally everything lol. 

Has Cleveland produced a single QB that has thrown over 20 TD’s since 2000?

Has their Defense ever been #1

what about their run game?

They ever beat Indy and NE back to back in the playoffs? 

Cleveland isn’t even close to being as functional as the Jets..and while that alone isnt saying much...that doesn’t make you right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2017 at 5:18 PM, UnitedWhofans said:

IF we fired Macc it would 3 GMs in 6 years. You can't run an organization like that.

This isnt a good reason. 

Sure, it may be 3 GM's in 6 years, but Macc has been here for 3 of those 6 years, and Tannenbaum was the Jets GM for 8 years. So when you say 3 GM's in 6 years, it makes it seem like they all began and ended their tenure within that timespan when they didnt. In reality, The Jets had 3 GM's in 11 years if we properly count Tanny's tenure with the organization. If we remove Tanny then it would be 2 GM's in 5 years with Macc being here for the majority of the duration...and again, can we even count Idzik's time here? He was purposely brought in to dismantle the team but what made it worse was his inability to draft. that's more on this organization that it was on Idzik, no matter how bad Idzik was. This is a guy who came in and couldnt make any of his own decisions. He couldnt fire Rex, he couldnt spend money to make the team better and the only reason why he got Harvin is because he and Golden Tate were at one another's throats and Harvin couldnt stay on the field. If there was ever an example on how you dont run an organization, the Idzik years is definitely a prime example, and not specifically because of John Idzik. 

 

So, 3 GM's in 11 years (which would be more accurate) doesnt seem as bad, especially when you can come to grips with the fact that Idzik was in over his head. Macc hasnt been as bad, but he hasnt been good either. When the leaders of your team during your 3 years are Fitz and McCown and the two QB's that you've drafted are Petty and Hackenberg and almost none of your free agent signings are panning out, I think its fair to atleast have the conversation of possibly replacing this guy, especially when we have to hit on a QB this year and this GM's history is Petty, Hackenberg, Fitzpatrick and McCown. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Patriot Killa said:

Not sure why the HUGE time gap doesn’t matter? 

Think you just like to argue with everyone about literally everything lol. 

Has Cleveland produced a single QB that has thrown over 20 TD’s since 2000?

Has their Defense ever been #1

what about their run game?

They ever beat Indy and NE back to back in the playoffs? 

Cleveland isn’t even close to being as functional as the Jets..and while that alone isnt saying much...that doesn’t make you right.

On top of that, his entire concept is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

To say that the former Cleveland Browns (Ravens) organization, is the same organization as the current Cleveland Browns organization is like saying your dad divorced your mom, your mom marries your uncle, and you say your uncle is your new blood father.

It just isn't so and defies logic.

Jesus Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

This isnt a good reason. 

Sure, it may be 3 GM's in 6 years, but Macc has been here for 3 of those 6 years, and Tannenbaum was the Jets GM for 8 years. So when you say 3 GM's in 6 years, it makes it seem like they all began and ended their tenure within that timespan when they didnt. In reality, The Jets had 3 GM's in 11 years if we properly count Tanny's tenure with the organization. If we remove Tanny then it would be 2 GM's in 5 years with Macc being here for the majority of the duration...and again, can we even count Idzik's time here? He was purposely brought in to dismantle the team but what made it worse was his inability to draft. that's more on this organization that it was on Idzik, no matter how bad Idzik was. This is a guy who came in and couldnt make any of his own decisions. He couldnt fire Rex, he couldnt spend money to make the team better and the only reason why he got Harvin is because he and Golden Tate were at one another's throats and Harvin couldnt stay on the field. If there was ever an example on how you dont run an organization, the Idzik years is definitely a prime example, and not specifically because of John Idzik. 

 

So, 3 GM's in 11 years (which would be more accurate) doesnt seem as bad, especially when you can come to grips with the fact that Idzik was in over his head. Macc hasnt been as bad, but he hasnt been good either. When the leaders of your team during your 3 years are Fitz and McCown and the two QB's that you've drafted are Petty and Hackenberg and almost none of your free agent signings are panning out, I think its fair to atleast have the conversation of possibly replacing this guy, especially when we have to hit on a QB this year and this GM's history is Petty, Hackenberg, Fitzpatrick and McCown. 

 

But the real question is..would you fire Macc this offseason? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

On top of that, his entire concept is wrong.

No it’s not. You just entirely missed the point. Take Namath and SB 3 our of the Jets history and they are a bottom 5 organization in all of sports and would have a similar rep as the Browns do, regardless if the franchise changed over. That wasn’t the point. When people think of Cleveland they think futility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matt39 said:

Jesus Christ. 

Great comeback. 

Your whole premise is defining organizations. The current Cleveland Browns ohganization is in no part the same as the one that left in the early '90's. That concept is ridiculous. 

It is like saying the New York Mets are actually the former New York Giants, because they replaced them in the city, and played at the Polo Grounds.

Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

I would Fire both Macc and Bowles at the end of the Jets/Pats game. I would put in a call to Jim Harbaugh and see if he would like to coach this team...even going as far as giving him GM duties just to get him. 

Lol...Jim isn’t leaving. There isn’t a good enough upgrade lingering around to fire Mac and the only coach i’d take is Matt Nagy if we could get him free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2017 at 11:17 AM, Philc1 said:

Forget Bowles his bags are packed.  But why does everyone else have a pass?

I don't agree with this. I don't see Bowles moving to a bigger house just because he is getting a contract extension.

He seems more humble than that to me. I bet he stays in his current house. Moving is a such a pain and there is no reason for it just because you know you will be here for the next 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

To say that the former Cleveland Browns (Ravens) organization, is the same organization as the current Cleveland Browns organization is like saying your dad divorced your mom, your mom marries your uncle, and you say your uncle is your new blood father.

It just isn't so and defies logic.

LEAVE UNCLE ROGER, DAD OUT OF THIS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

On top of that, his entire concept is wrong.

The concept was the Jets have been a bad organization. Substitute the Lions for the Browns, Namath and SB 3 is what separates the organizations post merger. When people think of the Browns(both versions) they think ineptitude and Elway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

The concept was the Jets have been a bad organization. Substitute the Lions for the Browns, Namath and SB 3 is what separates the organizations post merger. When people think of the Browns(both versions) they think ineptitude and Elway.

And you stated that the "Browns" have been to Conference Championship games. That is flat out wrong. The current Browns organization has not.

And to insinuate that the current Browns organization has a connection to the former one, just because the NFL wanted to make them feel warm and fuzzy, is incorrect reasoning. 

That is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JiF said:

I respectfully disagree.  The biggest value in the draft comes in the top 50 picks.  Hack was 51 and was selected with some serious talent on the board that could actually help the team win moving forward.  It especially hurts considering it was back to back 2nd round picks that have provided zero value to the team.

If the plan was to build the roster and go all in this offseason on a QB, why take Hack at all?

That draft is/was a debacle.  The best pick was in the 7th round and he's a punter.  Jenkins is a nice JAG to have on the roster though.  He'll have a nice unspectacular career in the NFL.  Pretty decent for the 3rd round I guess.

IMO it's no different than the Packers taking Brohm in the 2nd round, you gotta take shots. Again if we used a 1st or traded up in the 2nd I'd be upset but losing 1 starting player for a potential franchise QB is the gamble you sort of have to take to find a QB. He took a stab at a guy that people thought looked worse because of what happened around him, we whiffed on the pick.

Losing Smith hurt because he didn't earn his draft slot but career ending injuries are not something you can plan for when the player was healthy prior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Philc1 said:

Hate to break the news Allen might be as bad as Hack

Yea I think he has a really good chance to be bad at the next level so I wouldn't be happy. If a lot of scouts project him as a top 10 pick though and Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield are all gone and we didn't need to move up then I'd let it play out. I would prefer Jackson but it scares me that a lot of sources have him as a 2nd round pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

And you stated that the "Browns" have been to Conference Championship games. That is flat out wrong. The current Browns organization has not.

And to insinuate that the current Browns organization has a connection to the former one, just because the NFL wanted to make them feel warm and fuzzy, is incorrect reasoning. 

That is all.

 

It was more a perception point. People combine both versions when they think of the ineptitude of the Cleveland Browns. Anyway I think we’ve gone down this rabbit hole far enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

IMO it's no different than the Packers taking Brohm in the 2nd round, you gotta take shots. Again if we used a 1st or traded up in the 2nd I'd be upset but losing 1 starting player for a potential franchise QB is the gamble you sort of have to take to find a QB. He took a stab at a guy that people thought looked worse because of what happened around him, we whiffed on the pick.

Losing Smith hurt because he didn't earn his draft slot but career ending injuries are not something you can plan for when the player was healthy prior. 

The Packers had Aaron Rodgers when they took Brohm.  I think this is very different.  When you're a sh*tty Football team you cant afford to take shots.  Especially for a QB like Hack that some people had listed as undraftable.

GM's whiff.  It happens but Hack was drafted with a plan to "redshirt" him. That's not the type of player you draft in the 2nd round.  That means they knew he was terrible when they drafted him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JiF said:

The Packers had Aaron Rodgers when they took Brohm.  I think this is very different.  When you're a sh*tty Football team you cant afford to take shots.  Especially for a QB like Hack that some people had listed as undraftable.

GM's whiff.  It happens but Hack was drafted with a plan to "redshirt" him. That's not the type of player you draft in the 2nd round.  That means they knew he was terrible when they drafted him.

 

59% Completion percentage 1 TD 1 INT for 329 yards in 7 games

I'd say it's safe to say they had no idea what Rodgers was going to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

59% Completion percentage 1 TD 1 INT for 329 yards in 7 games

I'd say it's safe to say they had no idea what Rodgers was going to be.

You mean when they drafted him in the 1st round and refused to commit to Brett Favre?

Come'on brother! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

That was 3 years prior, and they had Matt Flynn to be a back up. Tell me again why a 2nd round pick on Brohm was a good idea.

I didn't say it was a good idea. Please follow along.  I said the situation isn't comparable.  GB was moving on from a legend, for a 1st rounder that was waiting for his opportunity to play.  I don't think they'd kick their HOF QB to the curb if they didn't believe in Rodgers.  Brohm was more of a insurance type of pick.  Whereas, Hack was picked to the be the future.  GB could afford a whiff, the Jets coudnt. 

This is apples to oranges my man and that's not even getting into that fact that Brohm was a much better prospect than Hack coming out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

That was 3 years prior, and they had Matt Flynn to be a back up. Tell me again why a 2nd round pick on Brohm was a good idea.

QB is a very high value position so using a 2nd or 3rd rounder on one when you already have a franchise guy is not a bad investment if you think the guy is very good.  The pats do it about every 2nd year.  Brohm stunk but he actual got some reg season snaps, unlike our current 2nd round hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are living in Post-Purge #5. It's been a questionable 3 years, but the reality is that the only way we can get to lucky Purge #7, is to go through Purge #6. So let's fire Macc/Bowles, so we can live through 3 years of the next regime, so we can purge them and finally get to lucky Purge #7 which will finally result in a GM that hits on every draft pick and a HC that never fails on a replay challenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

QB is a very high value position so using a 2nd or 3rd rounder on one when you already have a franchise guy is not a bad investment if you think the guy is very good.  The pats do it about every 2nd year.  Brohm stunk but he actual got some reg season snaps, unlike our current 2nd round hero.

Agreed, not the argument though. What part of 59% 1 TD 1 INT 329 in 7 games leads you to believe you have a franchise QB? They took Brohm because they didn't believe in Rodgers yet.

16 minutes ago, JiF said:

I didn't say it was a good idea. Please follow along.  I said the situation isn't comparable.  GB was moving on from a legend, for a 1st rounder that was waiting for his opportunity to play.  I don't think they'd kick their HOF QB to the curb if they didn't believe in Rodgers.  Brohm was more of a insurance type of pick.  Whereas, Hack was picked to the be the future.  GB could afford a whiff, the Jets coudnt. 

This is apples to oranges my man and that's not even getting into that fact that Brohm was a much better prospect than Hack coming out.

Why was Hack viewed as the future? Since 1994 no pick that late in round 2 has ever really succeeded at QB, it would seem like it was a hope of potential after being stuck in a bad college situation. Brees(32), Carr(36), Kaep(36), and Dalton(35) were all taken because they barely fell out of the 1st round. I think people need to temper the expectations on Hack, was he a bad pick yea but hardly a damning selection.

Now if you want to argue that we should have waited until the end of round 3 then go ahead but I don't think he'd have lasted that long. I'd rather them pull the trigger on a QB they think has the potential to be franchise QB than pass on him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

Yea I think he has a really good chance to be bad at the next level so I wouldn't be happy. If a lot of scouts project him as a top 10 pick though and Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield are all gone and we didn't need to move up then I'd let it play out. I would prefer Jackson but it scares me that a lot of sources have him as a 2nd round pick.

I’d rather draft Chubb and take Falk in round 2 if all the top qbs are gone by 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...