Savage: Should I stay or should I go?
Lets assume Romeo is a gonner, at least after this season.
Should Phil Savage also be shown the door?
Pro Phil:
Our roster is better now than at any point in time since the Browns came back. He drafted actual star players or players with star potential such as Braylon Edwards, Joe Thomas, and Brady Quinn. He has signed quality free agents to contracts that aren't turning us in to the Raiders. He has done all of this with 3 offseasons and (I believe) short preparation for the 2005 draft. He grabbed 3 centers when LCB went down with an injury on the first day of camp, and all 3 have been decent for us, and he gave up basically nothing in return. He wasn't afraid to be agressive in trading away our 2nd and 3rd round picks to get one of few bright spots on the team in Shaun Rogers.
Anti Phil:
He doesn't hit on enough draft picks. He has yet to have one of his later round guys really become a star. Travis Wilson. He got rid of Leigh Bodden and our secondary is very shallow. Our roster is far from the Patriots', Chargers, etc. We don't have a pass rush. We aren't deep enough at any position except OL. We havn't drafted a young OT or OG to develop when Tucker or Fraley gets too old/falls off/gets hurt (Isaac Sowells absolutely does not count). Chase Pittman.
0 recs |
104 comments
Comments
To get the ball rolling
Draft hits:
Thomas
Quinn
Eric Wright
Vickers
Harrison
McDonald (except last week)
Alex Hall
Justin Hamilton
Edwards
Pool
Misses:
Wilson
Minter
Oshinowo
Purcell
Pittman
Steptoe
Paul Hubbard
McDonald (last week)
Wimbley
Jackson?
Sowells
Frye
Perkins
McMillan
Speegle
Hoffman
Dunn
Jury is still out:
Rucker
Bell
Rubin
Leon Williams?
I took draft round in to account. For instance; Wimbley, who I think is an OK player and is worth keeping on our roster but is not in the top 10 in the league at his position, is listed as a “miss”. Alex Hall, a 7th rounder of whom I expected nothing actually made the roster and is playing above anyone’s expectations and thus is listed as a “hit”. Justin Hamilton was a good 7th round pick and I still don’t think we should have gotten rid of him for Sorensen, Adams, etc.
Feel free to disagree on these.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I would say Hamilton should be miss mostly because he hasn’t done anything in an actual game. While he may have been fine for a 7th rounder, he hasn’t done anything to warrant being called a “hit.” I would also qualify D’Qwell Jackson more in the hit range than miss, despite his 2nd round draft status. I think Steptoe is on the verge of being a hit for his relative round.
The biggest misses for me are Wimbley and Charlie Frye. I did not want to draft Frye and thought it was a pick to appease the hometown fans at the time.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 13, 2008 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get that you are trying to consider draft round, but I tend to think of a guy that has developed into a every game starter as a hit, that’s what flips me on Wimbley and Jackson. Jackson is not good enough to be our answer at MLB and leading tackler, but I’d say he was a “hit”. Wimbley had a great rookie year and has regressed since, but the talent is still there. Would I rather have that NT that the Ravens got at our expense? yes. But I don’t think we missed on the pick… at least not yet.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just know I am biased pro-Savage and was trying to neutralize that. I think an argument can be made either way as to Wimbley and Jackson, and I am fine with considering them in any one of the three categories.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep Savage (unless it was Ozzie all along in B-more..hmm) but you need to get a new coach. That will be the only way to prove that Savage isn’t cut out for Cleveland. But, from what I’ve seen, you have plenty of talent to compete in the North..just some real head scratching play calling. Whoever blogged the feel for the game piece was dead on. If you got points for having guys on the ropes you’de be okay.
by raven on Nov 15, 2008 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just wondering…do you troll other teams’ sites or is this a Ravens/Browns exclusive?
by elsandito on Nov 15, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really
no argument from me. 11 Hits and 17 misses, good if your hitting in the 4 hole but not in the NFL draft. Browns have some interesting and important decisions to make in the next 3 months.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Nov 13, 2008 8:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
11/28 is phenomenal. I did a breakdown on the Titans, just to have a comparison. In 4 years, they had a 29% “hit rate”.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to see how Phil compares to other GMs here. This is a key aspect to Gm-ing. We need people who are capable of breaking down other teams picks with a decent amount of expertise. I don’t really feel qualified to judge that on other teams. Anyone feel up to it?
Also, I don’t think the hit/miss thing gives enough resolution. I think something like this gives us a much better metric:
Steals: McDonald (this would have been a fairly uncontroversial claim prior to Thursday, I’m not willing to judge him on one game), Vickers
Solid Picks: Thomas, Quinn, Eric Wright, Harrison, Alex Hall, Edwards, Pool
Average Picks: Justin Hamilton, Steptoe, Leon Williams
Poor picks: Minter, Oshinowo, Purcell, Pittman, Paul Hubbard, Wimbley, Jackson, McMillan, Speegle, Hoffman, Dunn
Busts: Wilson, Sowells, Frye, Perkins
Jury is still out:: Rucker, Bell, Rubin
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
when I went through the Titans draft picks last night, I was very liberal with calling something a hit. Basically, I looked up their player card on nfl.com and if they have been a consistent starter in the nfl, they were a “hit”. So that 29% includes guys like Vince Young and Pacman Jones. It also includes anyone who has started more than 10 games in a season whether that was with Tennesee or not. I did not include the 2008 class.
The reality is, the success rate of the draft is pretty low.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
correction, the Titans success rate I found for 04-07 drafts was 27%
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dogg, you did a much more rigorous analysis of the Titans’ drafts than I’ve undertaken to do for every team’s drafts in the Savage era…05-08. i applied the ever-failsafe “what have i heard about them” test to each and every player drafted in the last 4 NFL drafts. it took me for-freaking-ever to do so, so the follow up on each player’s nfl.com card went out the window—i do have a job and a social life that preclude me from spending anymore time on this w/o losing both. for what it’s worth, Dogg, i found the titans to be 36% (i live with a titans fan, so i feel like i know their team pretty well).
anyway, consider some sampling error, and some user error, but i found the “hit” rate (and for these purposes, i’ve defined “hit” as someone who i’ve heard of in a good context more than once…i pay a pretty substantial amount of attention to football, so i’m relying on gross offsetting errors for crediting a good Ohio State guy, for example, while discounting a lineman i may never have heard of), on average, to be 36. in my analysis, savage came up at 33.
dallas, denver and baltimore (in the years immediately after savage, interestingly) lead at 50, 50 and 47, respectively, while the bottom of the heap were SF, cincy and detroit, at 25.7, 21.9% and 20%.
take it for whatever it’s worth, but i think this supports my thesis that savage is no better than average, at least at the drafting part of his job.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 13, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the randomness of your criteria supports the thesis that Savage is working in a market filled with fans with little understanding of the game. We have one study that is based on statistics and actual figures and another based on how much you have heard of people. You then proclaim yours the better study while back-handedly insulting the other guy? That’s incredible.
by fwembt on Nov 15, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well, you’ve completely and entirely misunderstood me if you think i’m insulting Dogg. in fact, i was praising him for his much more rigorous analysis, and i openly admit as to the fault of my methods. i simply don’t have the time (or inclination, frankly) to do the same that Dogg did for all of football. clearly, when i say “take it for whatever it’s worth”, you don’t think it’s worth much, and that is fine. you should feel free to do the more complete analysis, though, and offer some conclusions, as opposed to jumping to an overreaction.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 15, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a good point. I might try this weekend.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why does everyone like Justin Hamilton so much? He’s not on the team and I think he’s out of the league.
by NickFantana on Nov 20, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you count hits on guys who were traded for high draft picks? The probability of success of a higher pick is better than a lower pick. If you trade the higher pick away, your draft avg would tend to drop, but the production of that pick would be transfered to the player you traded for ie, Rogers.
by elsandito on Nov 13, 2008 8:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rogers was worth both the picks that we traded for him and Williams, and Bodden. Jesus that man is good.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is what I’m saying. If you traded all your draft picks except 6th and 7th rounders for established players and those players played well…..and your 6th and 7th rounders were meh…would that make you a poor evaluator of talent? By trading away high draft choices for talent, it automatically lowers Phil’s averages the way we are measuring him.
by elsandito on Nov 13, 2008 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn’t drafted, but you have to give credit to him for signing Cribbs when all 32 teams in the draft passed on him. Whether it was he who made the call or a local scout, he was signed under Phil’s watch.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Nov 13, 2008 8:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely. It’s probably not an exaggeration to say that 30 other teams would give up probably a third round pick for Cribbs.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the thing that REALLY stands out is that after four years, only ONE linebacker is listed as a hit, and he is a rookie from this season. Our 3-4 system is in critical need of playmaking linebackers, but we don’t have any.
I realize that we dedicated one year entire to the offensive line and this past entire year to the defensive line, but you expect players to be sprinkled in at other positions (like we were able to do with the secondary).
Dawgs By Nature - Find out why Pittsburgh still sucks.
by ChrisPokorny on Nov 13, 2008 9:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The lack of late round picks at LB is pretty surprising. I wonder if we would spend more picks there if Phil felt that we didn’t really have glaring positions of need. In my opinion, LB and nickel back are really the only two glaring needs we have (albeit, we need more than one LB). You could count WR, but we have 2 guys in addition to Braylon who can play, they just both happen to be injured/an injury risk. Compare that to 2005…
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming he’s in control, I expect defensive depth to be the major target this offseason. OLB will be the biggest draft target overall.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that draft recap is about right.
For the record I’m pro-Savage. I think he’s put together a talented team, light years beyond the team he took over. I think he’ll continue to improve and continue to improve this team.
That said, a few more anti-Savage arguments and my take on them.
1. He let Anthony Henry go in order to sign Baxter.
That, in hindsight, was a monumentally poor decision. I didn’t like the move at the time, and it’s gone about as poorly as possible despite the fact that Henry has been unspectacular (but solid) in Dallas. I’d argue there’s no way he could have predicted the horrific series of injuries Baxter suffered so hindsight is even better than 20/20 here.
2. He gave DA a large, guaranteed contract instead of selling high.
This was a move I was very torn on. On one hand, you always want talent and depth at the QB position (or any other for that matter) and DA proved he had talent. On the other hand, there was the serious risk that DA was a flash-in-the-pan type player and passing on trades would negate his value to the team when it was at its highest. He chose the conservative route, but I don’t blame him after the high-profile injuries he’s had to compensate for. How would fans have reacted if Savage traded DA and then Quinn got hurt badly in the preseason? We’d have been stuck with Dorsey or an off the street player or a rookie and our highly touted team’s season would have been dead in the water. Fans would have called for blood. Keeping DA was the safer choice at the time, and having made that decision he had to do what he could to instill confidence in DA’s head. So, he gave him the guarantees. You’re the guy, go get em.
3. He drafted Frye.
I’ll admit I liked the move at the time. I bought some of the media scouting hype that had him as a very late 1st or 2nd round pick. When he “fell” to us in the third it seemed to good to be true. It very much was. Let’s not dwell on Frye-bashing because I could do that all day, but suffice to say for a guy that was supposed to be an excellent talent scout but perhaps with a blind spot for QBs, drafting Frye did not do Savage any favors.
4. He passed on Ngata for Wimbley.
I HATED this move at the time. HATED IT. Then, Wimbley got all those sacks his rookie year with only an one move and it seemed like he had all the potential in the world if he got better at run-stuffing and developed some inside moves. Well, it’s years later and he’s not developed at all as a player. He’s limited in the same ways he was in his first NFL game and he’s too easy to shut down. Meanwhile, Ngata is anchoring the BAL line and making quite a name for himself. Sh*t.
Those are the ones that have stuck with me. It’s easy for us to forget what he’s had to overcome in Cleveland. He had no input on the Crennel decision. He had very little talent on the team when he came here. Fans are desperate for a winner, and a we’re not exactly the nicest fan base. Then, the injuries. What other team has lost players as unexpectedly as Bentley and Baxter, and in more damaging and permanent ways? Those were two of Savage’s biggest FA wins and they never contributed to our 07 team. Winslow, one of the few incumbent talents, has had to overcome ridiculous injury issues. Braylon tore an ACL. Tucker went nuts. Stallworth hasn’t been able to contribute. Give Savage time, and I’m willing to bet he focuses a lot more on the draft now that he has a talented (if shallow) team.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 9:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I honestly forgot about Henry. Solid but unspectacular sounds like the essence of his career—and that’s not a bad thing.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 9:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll have to correct you on your first point. I’m pretty sure that Anthony Henry was traded for Antonio Bryant just before the deadline of the 2004 season, which was the final year of the Butch Davis era. Savage did not choose to let Henry get away, because he wasn’t even here in the first place. Savage went after Baxter to try and recover from the mistake of Davis ditching Henry.
The fans loved it when we for Frye when we did, and it wasn’t a horrible pick. He was a good value pick at the time and worth taking a shot on. I agree with your point about not taking Ngata, and am still on the fence about Anderson.
Dawgs By Nature - Find out why Pittsburgh still sucks.
by ChrisPokorny on Nov 13, 2008 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually (and I had to look this up to remember), it was Quincy Morgan that was traded to Dallas for Bryant. That was one of Davis’ better moves.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the medicine. One of those things where I knew how it went down but just completely forgot at the time I posted that.
Dawgs By Nature - Find out why Pittsburgh still sucks.
by ChrisPokorny on Nov 13, 2008 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on Frye, but we have to judge draft picks on how the player turned out. Frye turned out horribly, hence he was a bad pick. It’s Savage’s job to be right more often than his competitors. I think it’s hard to say if he has been to date, but I’d say he’s been better than average in the draft.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On Frye specifically: He was a bad pick. Not because he didn’t do well as a starting QB in Cleveland for some mediocre bad teams, but because he wasn’t talented. There were all sorts of reports out there that many teams didn’t think he had any business in the NFL.
On judging draft picks only on how the player turned out- that is a touchy subject arround here. But, we can use how players turned out in aggregate to come up with a more objective measure of a GM.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on Frye, but we have to judge draft picks on how the player turned out.
Actually, no. That’s called “results-based-analysis.” You judge the methodology.
by joeee on Nov 13, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as Dogg has noted…the proper way to judge a draft pick is a topic of great sensitivity around here. w/o getting into that, though, i’d contend that the only way to judge a GM’s capabilities as a drafter is through results. can we at least agree on that? this isn’t a science experiement, where the empirical testing methods can be weighed and the conduct of your experiment measured as good or bad, regardless of the outcome. if your draft picks help your team win, you are a good GM, if they don’t, then no matter how sound your argument for those picks, you’re looking for a new job. how’s that?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 13, 2008 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How is that? I guess a little irrelevant. If you’re methodology truly is “sound” (like I believe Savage’s to be) then you will almost certainly have some significant fraction of your picks work out. You didn’t say this, but I’m using it as an example – the Baxter trade was not a bad trade. It was a good trade that didn’t work out. The distinction is small but important – it’s what keeps us from not being mouth-breathers. As Browns fans, we expect that fraction to be around 9/10, naturally. That’s why some criticism levelled against us is due.
by joeee on Nov 14, 2008 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
while we’re on the subject of irrelevance, the baxter move is COMPLETELY irrelevant as it relates to evaluating the draft. while FA signings/trades are a crucial part of a GM’s job, we’re talking about the draft. the baxter move was a good move, but this is apples and bowling balls, my friend. baxter’s signing was good b/c he’d been performing at a pro bowl level, in the NFL, for an extended period. same goes for LeChuck. you’d make each of those deals again.
the draft, though, is a completely different animal, and judging the methodology is virtually impossible. while we’re at it, you believe savage’s methodology is sound—and presumably different that others’ methodology—please enlighten us as to what that method is…
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
method is…to be methodical (which is a better method thn what was used the 6 years before he arrived)
by dvd1204 on Nov 14, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo. Also – as much as we already love the picks, it’s possible that his Thomas/Quinn round 1 deal goes down as one of the all-time smart moves.
by joeee on Nov 14, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh, i see. so as long as the GM is methodical, then we’re happy with him? got it. duly noted.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
by the way…you’re already contradicting yourself here. “it’s possible” that Thomas-Quinn is great? isn’t that results based? teeth getting in the way of that breathing cycle, buddy?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, this is just a distortion on your part. No big deal.
Thomas/Quinn picks were great from a strategic standpoint. Even if Quinn never played a down and Anderson became some stud – (results based conjecture) – the picks were a huge success. We’d have dealt Quinn and received a decent haul. Needed an o-line, needed a quarterback to complement the drafting of previous years’ projectable, but unproven, WR/TE. The picks were good, independent of outcome, and we knew this before Quinn had finished taking his pictures with his new Browns jersey.
As it stands, once the results do come in, which they already have started to for Thomas, the move might be remembered as one of the best outcomes ever.
by joeee on Nov 14, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i can appreciate you backtracking on this…no sweat.
you say unequivocally that Quinn and Thomas were good picks. my issue with that is, then who, in NFL history, has been a bad pick? someone can make a defensible argument for every pick that’s ever happened. what if Quinn turns out to be Tim Couch or Thomas Tony Mandarich? the picks would still be defensible, but certainly not good.
on that note, was Couch a good pick?
and finally, are we to understand that the methodology you cite here (“needed an o-line, needed a quarterback…”) of “identify need, draft that need” is Savage’s famous and diabolically brilliant strategy?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If a pick is truly defensible, and is the best, or one of the best, of all the applicable options, then yes, it’s a good pick. But there are a lot of head scratchers.
Savage identified a need that he could fill via the draft: offense. And he was consistent and steady about it, despite injuries to Winslow and Edwards. Also despite the fact that our defense is terrible. Unfortunately, you can’t have it all. Couple these picks with a cheap stop-gap Lewis signing, you all of a sudden have the makings of a legitimate offense.
by joeee on Nov 14, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is total BS (at least the first paragraph). you’re giving GMs the “participation award”. it is the GM’s job to pick the best, not one of the best, of the applicable options.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 15, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not the participation award. Just referencing the arbitrary nature of “best.”
by joeee on Nov 16, 2008 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You are right, I would make both of those moves again.
But unless you are referring to this specific thread of comments only, we are talking about whether or not Savage should keep his job or how much value Savage has in this organization. Part of his job is to bring in FAs to help this team.
by rufio on Nov 14, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i’m just talking about drafting for this particular thread of comments. as you and Dogg and Brad and i have argued about elsewhere, i think it’s important to judge more than just the methodology when evaluating savage’s success in the draft.
overall, though, this discussion is just as you say…it has to include FAs and trades, which i think i mention somewhere lower.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is silly. Of course the only way to measure drafting ability is to measure results. It’s Savage’s job to be right more often than his competitors. He must outperform the pack. If he’s doing that, and I’ll challenge anyone with the expertise to compare recent draft histories between the Browns and any other teams, than that’s all that matters, i.e. he should stay.
To sit there and say, “well from what I heard from Mel Kiper and what I saw in the super-sweet FSU highlight package drafting Kameron Wimbley over Ngata was the right move and I don’t fault Savage for making that decision,” is whole-heartedly retarded. It assumes you know as much as a GM. The only metric we can have is results.
by danvail on Nov 14, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In fairness to Phil, even though I don’t think it was the best move, we still have a chance to trade Anderson in the offseason. There are a LOT of teams that need a QB. You could argue that those same teams needed a QB last year, but I still have hopes that we can get something of value in return for DA. The guy still flashed talent at times this year and there was even a national media debate over whether benching him was the right move. I am betting that there are a few GMs out there that would make a run at trading for him
by Roger Dorn on Nov 13, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree, but you aren’t going to get the same value you would have last year. Not even close. Thus, the point on “selling high”.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t blame Savage for resigning Anderson this past offseason. After the season he had, you couldn’t just let him go and turn the offense over to an untested rookie. I still thought Quinn was our long-term answer at QB, and I’m guessing Savage did too, but with Anderson’s performance last year it gave Quinn some more time to learn before he played (like Rivers learning behind Brees at SD). Plus, the Browns didn’t pay DA much this year and can trade him this offseason. With all the teams that need a QB, the Browns can get something for him. With all the problems that the Browns have had at QB since ‘99, he couldn’t just let go of our first Pro Bowler after his first season. Quinn was not (and still is not) a proven commodity.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I also noted depth as a reason he kept him.
The argument against Savage, however, will state that he made a mistake by not selling when DA’s value was at its highest.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Savage was caught in a tough spot. He really had no choice but to sign DA, At least it wasn’t a huge deal, good money but not out of control.
But like you said, if DA doesn’t see the field the rest of the year, his value will definetly go down.
Overall Savage has done well, just wish the Browns had players that attacked the ball on “D” better. Linebackers come to mind.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Nov 13, 2008 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly, and I support the decision Savage made, I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate here.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think everyone’s on the same page that without a crystal ball, there is no way you trade one of the pro bowlers from last year, especially a QB.
The only thing Savage might have tried would have been to sign Anderson to the 1st and 3rd round qualifying RFA offer, or give him the franchise tag. That way, if someone would have signed him away, we would have gotten good picks and Savage could have used the “I never thought anyone would actually sign him away for those picks” defense. This is really the route one would need to go to argue this as a mistake for Savage, in my opinion.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That might be the best argument against his decision, but it’s certainly not the most popular. The standard argument here is Savage missed the sell-high point, so he screwed up and he sucks and he should be fired.
I think it’s a stupid argument, and fortunately the responses we’re seeing here indicate this portion of the fanbase agrees.
by danvail on Nov 14, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel that Savage has done an excellent job in talent evaluation. There are some misses (Wimbley being the biggest one), but many more hits. When Savage and Crennel came in the team had absolutely nothing. The browns drafts before Savage were absolutely atrocious. Now at least they have an average amount of talent.
Savage has not been as good as providing a stable organization. The Browns often look bad. For me, I care nothing about PR, winning games will make this all go away.
by oxforddave on Nov 13, 2008 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
More than likely Phil survives and Romeo goes. I’d be suprised if Lerner didn’t give Savage a chance to hand pick his next coach with the understanding that we had better win in 2009.
It’s tough to hand out a grade until I see how Brady Quinn performs the rest of the season. Assuming he lives up to his hype and we go say…. 4-3 the rest of the way I’d give Savage a grade in the C +/B – range.
IMO, his biggest accomplishment has been the solidification of the offensive and defensive lines. When healthy, our O line is one of the best and our defensive line featuers one of the best interior linemen in the game and several solid players. Injuries have somewhat hampered the D line this year and I can’t wait to see how it performs if/when Corey Williams and Robaire Smith are back at full strength.
My dream scenario for the next year?
Oakland, in their infinate wisdom declines to re-sign Nnamdi Asomugha and we are able to win the bidding war.
Unload Anderson for a 3rd round pick if possible.
Hang on to Winslow.
Draft the best rush linebacker or corner back available in rounds one and two. Draft the best available player with remaining picks. We need depth everywhere. I’d love to pick up a late round steal at RB.
An interseting caveat, if Chris Wells is still available when we pick in the 1st round do we take him? It would be hard to pass on him. Otherwise I like taking the best available defensive player in the 1st round with a focus on LB.
by mgtbfb on Nov 13, 2008 11:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wells will be gone. I’d take him, though, if he were there. I’m not one for drafting OSU guys just because I’m familiar with them, but Wells is an awesome back.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Wells will definately be gone. He’s going to be the first running back taken. He has the power and speed necessary to play in the NFL. Remember how he ran away from the LSU defenders in the Championship game last year?
OSU is going to have a lot of players drafted high this year (because many seniors came back this year). Wells, Jenkins, Laurinitis will all be first rounders. Boone, Robiskie, and Freeman will probably be second or third rounders. I’ve already mentioned that I would love to get Jenkins, but Marcus Freeman might be a possibility for a later round pick. I’m not great at judging talent, but he seems to be a good linebacker and his name has been mentioned by other sites I’ve read as a overlooked player. We need all the help at LB we can get.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For every one OSU LB that might help at a given draft spot there is usually 10 other, more talented guys available. OSU players are high profile, and are generally drafted ahead of where their talent should land them.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true, but freeman might be flying under the radar right now. Laurinitis gets all the pub, and Freeman has the physical tools to be a good NFL OLB. Probably a much better fit for a 4-3 though.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure about that statement. OSU players are often high profile because they’re good. It’s true that I don’t know about all college linebackers and where Freeman ranks. But I do read some good websites that cover all college football and they’ve said that, this year, OSU and USC have as much NFL talent as anyone in the country. That’s why there will be many OSU players taken in the draft.
I’d like to see evidence that OSU players are drafted ahead of where they should be taken. I don’t believe that. NFL scouts follow all colleges, not just the high-profile ones.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No way Freeman should go before the 4th pick in the 2nd round, if draft stock were frozen right now. There might be a team dumb enough to take him before that. I could see a late 4th round reach.
Freeman would fit decently as an ILB in our scheme. He is strong for his size, but pretty small ~6’1", 240. He is very explosive and set the record for the hang clean at OSU (an explosive, Olymipic style lift). He has good agility and might be able to get to an NFL QB. He would be much better suited as an OLB in a 4-3 scheme that is a “Tampa-2” style, though. They require fast (and usually smaller) LBs who are good in pass coverage. That would be his best fit, and a team like the Colts or Tampa might use a late first/early second rounder on him.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant that more from a media and especially fan perspective. Local OSU homers constantly mention OSU players that could maybe possibly fit the Browns. I’ll stand by the comment, though, because I think it’s a real trend that OSU players go ahead of where their talent should place them.
2007 and 2008 are too early to tell, so looking at 2006 and 2005:
2006 1 5 A.J. Hawk LB Packers
Playing up to they hype? I don’t hear much on him..
2006 1 8 Donte Whitner S Bills
Starting, no turnovers forced so far in 08. Solid player, but not a game-changer that you’d expect being a top ten pick
2006 1 18 Bobby Carpenter LB Cowboys
Bust. 34 tackles total (career) and doesn’t start
2006 1 25 Santonio Holmes WR Steelers
On pace for 58 catches, 838 yards, and 4 Tds in what is typically thought of as a WRs breakout year (3).
2006 1 29 Nick Mangold C Jets
Solid starter I believe
2006 3 70 Ashton Youboty CB Bills
2006 3 76 Anthony Schlegel LB Jets
2006 4 121 Nate Salley S Panthers
2006 4 128 Rob Sims OG Seahawks
2005 2 47 Mike Nugent PK Jets
2005 3 80 Dustin Fox S Vikings
2005 3 101 Maurice Clarett RB Broncos
Well now I’m bored so I don’t feel like reviewing the rest, but who in this list was a really good pick?
by danvail on Nov 14, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well of course fans mention the players they know, and Cleveland fans know OSU players. That has nothing to do with where OSU players are drafted.
I don’t hear much about Hawk but he seems to be a solid player (but probably not what you want from a 5th pick). I’ve heard many good things about Whitner already. Carpenter hasn’t done much (which surprises me) but Holmes has been great. His stats are down this year because Rothlessburger is hurt, but his stats were great last year. Mangold is regarded as one of the best centers in football. Overall, I’m guessing you could say the same thing for players from USC, Miami, Florida, or any other big-time football school.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 14, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re talking up that group too much. Holmes has not been great, he’s been good. He and Mangold are the only two on that list that have played up to their billing. Carpenter is an absolute bust. He doesn’t even start. Whitner has been ok, solid even, but jeez he was a safety drafted 8th overall. He’s no Ed Reed and he’s no Polomolololu. Hawk is not living up to the hype but I’m not calling him a bust.
Nugent was a kicker drafted in the second round. What a waste of a pick. Unless he’s making a half dozen 60 yarders per year, take a stab at a football player in the second round.
Clarett’s too easy and doesn’t really fit what I’m describing here anyway.
Dustin Fox. Wow. He was a third round pick… and just got signed to the Bills practice squad.
All these mid-round picks and nothing doing. I think Youboty starts, but that’s about it.
The whole point is exactly what you said: “you could say the same thing for players from USC, Miami, Florida, or any other big-time football school.” Big-time school draftees get over-rated pretty consistently. That’s something you’re average “trade-up-for-Hawk” OSU homer doesn’t seem to understand.
by danvail on Nov 16, 2008 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the average fan overvalues OSU players. That’s understandable, though, because they follow those players and most fans don’t follow college football close enough to know too many players outside of their team. Even a hardcore sports fan like myself, who watches a lot of college football games, can’t follow all of the players and all of the teams in college football because they’re just too many (especially when you’re talking about non-“skill position” players). So when people talk about players the Browns can get, they naturally talk about players they know.
I read quite a bit online about football on sites such as collegefootballnews.com which offers an unbiased view of players, so I feel that I have a good gauge of where OSU players rank compared to their peers. There are many highly-ranked OSU players this year, and that’s not homerism. Wells and Jenkins could both be top 10 picks and Laurinitis is talked about being around 15. He doesn’t have the physical skills of a guy like Maleuga but he’s still a solid player. I mentioned those two guys because they’re players in a need position for Cleveland who may be available when we’re picking. Of course, there’s a lot that’s going to happen between now and the draft. But I didn’t just mention those guys because I’m an OSU fan and I think they’re the greatest.
As far as NFL teams overvaluing OSU players, I still don’t think I believe that and your “analysis” hasn’t convinced me. You took two drafts of OSU players and based your conclusion on that, and I don’t think that is valid. NFL teams have scouts that cover all the teams, not just the big ones, and when they’re working out at the combine nobody cares where they went to college, they just care how fast they can run. You always see a few guys from teams outside of the big conferences that rise up draft boards because of their workouts. The draft is so inexact that any time you take a group of 8 or so players you’re going to have quite a few that don’t work out no matter where they went to college. I don’t believe players from OSU, or other big-time schools, are overvalued by NFL teams, and you’d have to do a larger study to convince me.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 16, 2008 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are both correct here. OSU fans tend to overrate their players, but so do almost all fans. It’s accepted that, to a certain extent, front offices tend to overrate their own players as well. It seems reasonable to assume that scouts do the same.
If you are the Browns and you have two scouts, one good and one not so good, and you need to scout OSU and Troy where do you send the good one? Do you then value his advice a bit more? So yes, the big schools will get slightly overrated players because the best scouts tend to hype them a bit more. In the end, most of them pan out anyway because there is a reason they are playing for OSU or USC.
To say that OSU players are overrated is to overstate it. I would wager that a two year sampling of LSU, USC and Oklahoma players returns almost the same results. The fact that Dustin Fox didn’t live up to his draft status doesn’t mean that you can project that Beanie Wells won’t.
by fwembt on Nov 17, 2008 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, both Clarrett and Nugent were HUGE surprises when they were picked. Everyone thought Shanahan was crazy for drafting Clarrett that high and Nugent was not only a 2nd rounder, but also the Jets’ first pick that year.
Most OSU fans didn’t even have those two rated that high.
I don’t think you can say Carpenter has completely busted because you never see him play. I think a 4-3 team would still trade a pick to see what he could do.
by rufio on Nov 17, 2008 6:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not disagreeing with your overall point, but: Hawk is very very good and I’d rather have Whitner than Ed Reed. Mangold has helped turn around that Jets line.
In other news, I watched Antoine Winfield almost win a game by himself for the Vikings this year.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 17, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wells only knock is injury risk, not sure how much of a factor that will play. Peterson came with the same risk and went 7th even though I felt he was the best overall player
by Roger Dorn on Nov 13, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Beanie has been saying over and over that he will not come out this year. He knows he is due a lot of money whenever he comes out, but don’t put it past him to stick around.
Last year everyone thought Laurinaitis and Jenkens were coming out and they didn’t…I personally think he will come out, but it is far from a sure thing at this point.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d say we (OSU) have a 50/50 chance of him staying.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 13, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
something to consider: the nfl’s collective bargaining agreement is going to be voided after next year (09-10 season), and the new version is overwhelmingly likely to include a rookie salary cap. don’t be surprised to see an absolute flood of talented red-shirt sophomores and juniors (red shirt and otherwise) head to the league this year, for a shot at one last un-capped rookie deal.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 17, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am for Keeping Randy....AND Romeo for one more year.
( no I have not been smoking anything and please don’t name call)
What we have in three years time is a team with more talent and ability than before. In fact, its light years better. Yes, we have problem areas such as LB, CB and depth across the board. But I still think this thing is headed in the right direction. The inertia is with us. We are in the “sometimes we can play well, sometimes we can’t” phase of rebuilding this team into a contender. We still need time to get more and better pieces.
I DO NOT WANT TO BLOW IT UP AND START OVER..(it will lead me to heavy drinking again). Stay the course! Mutiny only if things get really bad like less than 5 wins next year.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 13, 2008 12:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Part of me feels this way. Echoing the drinking statement.
I don’t think Romeo has gotten enough credit for turning a “hot and cold” guy like Rogers into a consistent beast.
He has fallen short in a lot of other areas, though.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I see that . The problem with Romeo is you have to think hard to find the good things he has done.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 13, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you don’t really have an option as far as “keeping” randy…
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no reason to blow the team up, even if we get all new coaches. This team has talent, no coach will disagree. That’s different from when Savage came in and the team had to be dismantled and rebuilt.
The defense could be kept in a 3-4 or switched to a 4-3 with little trouble. The offense might have a mild learning curve in a new offense but Quinn (unlike, say DA) seems to be very smart and capable of learning a new offense. Also, there’s no guarantee we’d lose Chud if a new HC came in.
The biggest problem we have now, is that Crennel is a bad coach. He’s awful. He makes no adjustments. He can’t manage the clock. He’s supposed to be a defensive guru but his defenses have shown poor results and unimaginative play. He makes poor personnel decisions. He’s losing this team (see recent remarks by J Lewis). He must be replaced before we lose everything we’ve gained in the past few years.
by danvail on Nov 13, 2008 12:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think it would be a lot of trouble to switch to a 4-3. Really, we have noone that could play a 4-3 end. Guys like Hall and Wimbley become worthless- too small for end, to one dimensional for 4-3 LB. We’d have to get at least 6 new players for that to work. I guess Leon Williams and D’Qwell Jackson might be candidates for OLB in a 4-3, but you are asking them to totally change the position after a few years getting down the one we have.
For better or worse, we have a 3-4 for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, I’m not against adjusting the 3-4 so its more creative. Zone blitzes, overload blitzes, changing coverages, etc.- I’m all for that. But that requires only a change of scheme, not totally new personel.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
End is really the position we would need in the switch.We are simply lacking any 4-3 type ends. Wimbley and Hall could maybe play in a Tampa-2 type D, but would be nowhere near the Colts’ or Bucs’ ends in terms of talent.
Hall and Wimbley could still play in a Jim Johnson/Spagnulo type attacking 4-3. Jackson could be a good 4-3 MLB.
by rufio on Nov 13, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to get too bogged down in terminology, but don’t we basically play a Tampa 2 right now? We simply have Wimbley or Hall as the 4th rusher from the end and play a 2 deep, strong corner type coverage as our base.
by DaytonDogg on Nov 13, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, at least I really don’t think so. We may run Tampa-2 as a defensive play but we do not run it enough to say we are in that scheme. Our base may be a “Cover 2”, which just means that both Safeties are deep in pass coverage.
Tampa 2 DEs and one of the DTs (the “3 technique”) all play a “one gap” technique. They pick a gap between 2 OL and try to “shoot” it/run through it to the QB. If there is a RB there with the ball, they tackle him. One DT “two-gaps”, either pushing one OL back while being able to tackle a runner to either side of him, or grabs two OL. On every defensive snap I have seen this year (which admittedly is probably less than 50% of them) any DL not dropping in to coverage has two-gapped. This is typical of a 3-4 scheme in the New England style; all 3 DL two-gap and then try to get off their blocks, while LBs blitz through the gaps because the OL are occupied with down linemen.
Tampa-2 MLBs also drop really deep in coverage, which is something I haven’t seen a lot of from us. Jackson and Davis might not be as fast as Urlacher, but they consistently play more hook-zone and underneath types of coverage.
Typically, Tampa-2 corners play press coverage, and then pass receivers off to safeties, not following guys all the way down the field.
We threw a lot of cover 1 or cover 3 looks against Denver, with the CBs retreating with that odd sideways technique while looking at the QB, not pressing the receiver or even looking at him. I remember specifically that on the long TD given up to Royal and the pass to Royal near the pylon before Torain’s TD (Denver’s first) our CBs were responsible for at least covering deep down the field, even if there was supposed to be Safety help on the long Royal TD. Part of this was probably to get Jones to be able to play closer to the LOS and cover slower dudes because he is not 100%.
by rufio on Nov 14, 2008 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. I guess there is no way to defend RAC boneheadedness but some of these gametime decisions could improve with better players, more points on the scoreboard and more options. We really don’t know what goes on internally. JL’s comments aside, how can we know that he is “losing” the team?
My hunch is that Randy will stay and so will Romeo.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 13, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Short of a miraculous run to the playoffs, Romeo will not be the head coach next year. It’s obvious he needs to go. Just listen to some of his comments; it’s as if he has no idea what’s going on. Did you see the comment on the front page about Beau Bell? Our LB’s are terrible, yet he can’t find a way to get Bell on the field? He makes dumb decisions during the game and we don’t make any adjustments. I don’t see any reason to keep Crennel as coach. He’s just not head coaching material.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Randy is the owner, he’s not going anywhere.
by fwembt on Nov 15, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. I understand he sucks at being a head coach. We all understand that. i just don’t think Phil, or whoever is in charge of Phil will pull the trigger unless play gets drastically worse over the next 8 games. I see BQ making games much more competitive and that, in turn saving Romeo’s bacon.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 13, 2008 1:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Oh…and one more thing. It’s really hard to have a discussion with all these pesky employees bothering me with questions.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 13, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who are you responding to?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You Buckeye Brad. I missed the reply button as I am getting interrupted.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 13, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s your key. Whoever is in charge. Lerner is more focused on English soccer than our Browns. I doubt that Lerner puts much effort into thinking about changing coaches. As long as the gate receipts add up and the tv monies get to the register, he’ll put in as little effort as possible. Lerner is the ani-Al Davis. Davis cans a guy every 8 games. Lerner will use any excuse to avoid canning a guy.
by elsandito on Nov 13, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so are you saying that lerner should have pushed savage to fire romeo after last year’s 10-win season? or after the prior year’s 4-win season, when everyone on the planet realized that 2 years wasn’t enough to really judge romeo w/ the cow-patty he was handed at the start?
lerner has handed over control of the football organization to people who know something about football. he’s given them all the chances (and $) they could want. 4 years is probably a pretty fair evaluation period, especially when you mix in a 10 win season and start from literally scratch. lerner is watching…don’t discount him b/c he has other interests. we’ll have to see in the offseason, though, b/c he’s not much of a believer in making a mid-season change, in the absence of a crying coach.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 13, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lerner’s comprehension of head coaches exactly equals yours. He counts the number of wins in a season and makes his decision from there. No need for any qualitative analysis of the head coach’s behavior, just count the wins.
by elsandito on Nov 14, 2008 9:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And how do you know this? How many head coaches has Lerner hired?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 14, 2008 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I don’t think you really have any basis for saying that. The Browns are a big investment, I am sure money alone is motivation enough to keep track of his multimillion (billion?) dollar investment.
by rufio on Nov 14, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Was that in response to my comment? Because if so, I don’t follow you.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 14, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well, your qualitative analysis of romeo’s behavior would have revealed that the players absolutely love this man (respect is a different, and harder to gague, question), and love playing for him. again, coming off of a 10-win season, i think it’s probably hard to fire someone whom the players adore.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I apologtize for my terse response. However, in my opinion, players are not qualified to assess the quality of a head coach and I don’t think their opinion of him qualifies as any part of an objective qualitative analysis of a head coach.
by elsandito on Nov 14, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’d argue that the players’ opinion of a coach—right or wrong—is a vital part of his evaluation. if the players aren’t feeling the coach, for whatever reason, it’s unlikely that they’re going to put forth maximum effort for him, no? wasn’t “losing the clubhouse” one of the reasons that butch started to cry and left town?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 14, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want the players to either be inspired by their coach or to fear their coach (see Lombardi), but that’s a simple prerequisite for a positive evaluation. No amount of player fawning can overcome misdeployment, poor clock management or failing to hold players and staff accountabe. I’m not saying RC is the worst coach to head a pro team, but he has shown to be inadequate in so many ways. And not one of those ways has anything to do with piling up 10 wins last year. No, I can’t explain how that was done. DA had a very good stretch and it was a pretty tame schedule, but 10 wins is 10 wins, especially with the sorry defensive line we had last year.
by elsandito on Nov 14, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m firmly and unquestionably on the fence on savage. how’s that for conviction. listen, clearly the guy has built a talented team out of exactly nothing. holdovers from the butch days…winslow and sean jones? is that all? for that he is to be praised.
the reasons i’ve moved to the fence, though, are: we’re talking about potentially bringing in a guy like cowher, who would basically spell phil’s ouster, so i’m wondering how bad a thing that would be; he’s fighting with kellen winslow in the press, that just wreaks of desperation/insecurity to me; this year, THE year for this team, we’ve fallen flat on our faces, which goes all the way up the ladder; his decision to go into the season w/ the LB corp and defensive backfield an absolute shambles.
so, when i’m thinking about savage, he’s supposed to be a draftnik…has he been that great? certainly not up to his billing, in my estimation. free agency? i’d argue that he’s not outperformed other gm’s if they were given the sums he’s had over the past few off seasons. that doesn’t mean he doesn’t get credit, but i guess he doesn’t get extra credit.
in summary, i guess the fact that i’m on the fence means i’d be willing to see another hand at the wheel…if that hand came attached to a massive chin.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 13, 2008 6:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 















