Savage gets ripped by Yahoo Sports

no doubt he’s a huge jerk, but Im not totally convinced we ought to fire him any time soon so long as he does something about the coaching situation. he’s done a good job of bringing in talent.

im not impressed with your performance

by troy145 on Dec 2, 2008 12:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If he really did that, then he is a horse’s ass.

by hartley on Dec 2, 2008 1:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

he’s a total horse’s ass. the more i think about savage and the job he’s done here, the less i like him. if he’s lucky enough to keep his job, there’d better be some substantial changes in the way that he behaves, and we’d better hire a coach who understands how to handle media, fans, coaches, players, email, etc.

punt savage, let’s go hire scott pioli. i’m over savage. his team is 4-12 in year 4. there are 15 of the 30 guys he’s drafted still on the roster. i’m not impressed, and his ridiculous behavior just solidifies it for me.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 2, 2008 2:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You don’t replace talent unless you have someone of equal or greater talent. Evaluators of talent do not grow on trees. Savage has some weaknesses, so we hire an assistant to help him deal with those while he grows up.
And don’t be so quick to take Lerner off the hook. It’s Lerner’s job to communicate to Savage that his evaluation depends on a number of identifiable factors, including how Savage treats his associates. Don’t forget, Savage is young and should not be judged as a finished product. We learned that lesson once with Bellichick, I see no reason why we have to learn this over and over.

by elsandito on Dec 2, 2008 2:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think you make an excellent point here. It’s tempting to think of any hire as a finished product, when in reality there is a natural growth curve. I really don’t think Savage is fully up to the huge job of being general manager, but he does have a considerable amount of ability. Why not make use of that ability, and surround him with people who fill in his areas of weakness? If he can’t – or won’t- work with those people, then you make the call that he isn’t going to work out. I would hate to see him take the lessons he has hopefully learned with the Browns elsewhere and become a star in the F.O. I vote to give him some help, and a little more rope. However, there has to be a clear time frame imposed by Lerner. Change and improve, or out the door.

by drjeo on Dec 2, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Savage has significantly improved the Browns roster. We do have difference makers at numerous positions now which we did not have before.

However, it is really hard to support him if he is selling out his coach. This organization has real loyalty problems; you have some numbskull leaking out info about Romeo’s job security to Mortensen while the GM is busy telling fans to go F themselves.

Any time something goes wrong here, everyone heads for the hills and goes into “every man for himself” mode. That needs to stop.

by gahnki on Dec 2, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the assistant has to help the boss grow up? please. if we’re talking growing pains as far as talent evaluation, that’s one thing. as a young guy, savage is certainly learning, and hopefully taking the lessons from his mistakes.

however, “growing up”, or, said differently, “acting like a professional” is not something i’m willing to wait for. nor is it something that i have confidence comes with time. he’s a jerk. plain and simple. what other gm (or coach, or assistant, or video coordinator) would tell a fan “fuck you”? seriously?

and what gm throws his coach under the bus like this? a coach, by the way, who marched into randy lerner’s office to throw his (considerable) weight behind savage in the collins fiasco. if derek anderson said what we all say on here every week — edwards sucks, he’s letting me down, it’s my job to put the ball in places where he can catch ‘em, but his job to catch ’em — we’d SKEWER anderson. but we want to sweep this under the rug with savage? what he said is no different from the scenario i just painted of anderson/edwards.

this guy is vastly overmatched for the full responsibilities of being a gm. maybe he’s a good talent evaluator (although, of that i’m not even convinced), but he is not a good gm. 4 years is enough of an evaluation period. time to move on.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 2, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really don’t see how you can say that you’re certain he’s not a good GM. I’m not saying he’s a great one, but he has definately upgraded the talent on this roster from when he took over. I blame most of this year’s problems on injuries and the coaching staff. You can’t blame the GM for giving up double-digit leads in the second half two games in a row. You can’t blame the GM that Braylon Edwards forgot how to catch the ball.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 2, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The jury is definitely still out as a talent evaluator. I liked the moves he made in this past offseason and have liked most of his draft picks at the time he made them. I also recognize that he had to start from scratch basically in terms of talent on roster when he took over. That said, he has nothing to show for, so even if our perspective is that the talent has been upgraded, there is no indication to believe we have more talent except for our 10-6 record last season against a weak schedule.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 2, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i’m saying he’s not a good GM today. and i’ll even allow that maybe he’s a good talent evaluator today. maybe he’ll be a good one one day, but considering that a GM is more than just a talent evaluator, i feel very comfortable saying he’s not a good GM today.

on the talent upgrades, where else could the talent level have gone from the butch days? i’m not discounting savage’s performance on that front, but i certainly won’t give him extra credit. this cupboard was so bare, unless he’d picked up roger d., you and me, the talent level was going higher. interestingly, though, i believe in butch’s last year (when he quit) the defense was like the 15th or 16th ranked in the NFL. this year, we’re 26th or something. that’s a talent upgrade?

further, you are 100% right that phil has no on-field role in giving up double-digit leads in the second half of two straight games. what he does play a role in, though, is fielding a team with scrubs across the board at linebacker…in a 3-4. what he does play a role in is fielding a corner stable of e. wright, daven holley and b. mcdonald, such that when a single injury occurs we have to go on the market and pick up terry freaking cousin. that’s where the gm plays into losing 2 consecutive (3 actually) double digit leads.

edwards…well…he just stinks. and remember, that was phil’s first pick!!

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 2, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i’m saying he’s not a good GM today. and i’ll even allow that maybe he’s a good talent evaluator today. maybe he’ll be a good one one day, but considering that a GM is more than just a talent evaluator, i feel very comfortable saying he’s not a good GM today.

What is he responsible for that he has failed at miserably?

by gahnki on Dec 2, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

on the player side of things, i’ll just mention one: defense. as i mentioned, i believe the defense was 15th or 16th in the league in butch’s last year…this year, after 4 years of player acquisitions, it’s 26th (maybe worse). specifically, he has neglected skill at LB and depth at CB. FAIL

he picked romeo. 24-36. FAIL

responding to fan emails. FAIL

dealing with the winslow/staph/press situation. FAIL

taking a “team first” approach and standing up for your embattled coach (or at least not launching him under the bus). FAIL

he’s the face of the franchise. the top football executive. he must—MUST—present a poised, calm, capable, professional front for the organization. he has absolutely not done that. so, i’ll play along and give you that he’s a “good” talent evaluator (even though i’m not convinced of that), but beyond that he makes this organization look silly, and that’s not ok.

shall i go on?

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 2, 2008 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

on the player side of things, i’ll just mention one: defense. as i mentioned, i believe the defense was 15th or 16th in the league in butch’s last year…this year, after 4 years of player acquisitions, it’s 26th (maybe worse). specifically, he has neglected skill at LB and depth at CB. FAIL

There has definitely been a lack of LB and CB talent. However, where is he going to get these assets that they lack? It would have to come at the expense of something..D-line, skill positions, QB, etc. I don’t see how any GM could have fielded a complete team in four offseasons considering the Browns had nothing left over from the previous regime except for some old linebackers and a banged up tight end.

The team should certainly be better than what it currently is, but let’s not act like it should be the equivalent of the Giants.

he picked romeo. 24-36. FAIL

Did he really pick Romeo? Or was Romeo picked by other executives (John Collins)?

Romeo was hired just two weeks after Savage. Is that really enough time to decide who you want or was it predesigned?

responding to fan emails. FAIL

Certainly dumb. Grounds for termination? Hardly.

dealing with the winslow/staph/press situation. FAIL

Please, Winslow is a prima donna. He is always coming up with some issue. I am much more sick of Winslow than anything Savage has done with him.

taking a "team first" approach and standing up for your embattled coach (or at least not launching him under the bus). FAIL

He should stand behind the coach, for sure.

he’s the face of the franchise. the top football executive. he must—MUST—present a poised, calm, capable, professional front for the organization. he has absolutely not done that. so, i’ll play along and give you that he’s a "good" talent evaluator (even though i’m not convinced of that), but beyond that he makes this organization look silly, and that’s not ok.

What makes the organization look silly is the lack of wins. I could care less if he is telling every fan to F off if they are winning. I’m guessing most fans would agree. If the Browns are leading the division then the F off story is already forgotten.

by gahnki on Dec 2, 2008 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i hope i don’t come off as expecting the giants, b/c that is ridiculous. after 4 years, though, of building a system, i do expect more than 4-8, even against a tough schedule.

revisionist history is not very difficult, clearly, but some other GM probably takes Ngata over Wimbley, which means we don’t have to trade picks for Rogers…and instead maybe we trade them for, or use them to select, a stud linebacker. mistakes compound, as you know. if we’d taken ngata, then maybe we don’t take babtunde oshinowo, and instead take another corner who can provide depth there. not to mention, it doesn’t take a complete overhaul of studs to remake a unit. he redid the entire offensive line w/ 2 splashes (thomas and steinbach), and larry, curly and mo.

you don’t want to pin the romeo hire on him? fine. gimme the romeo extension. FAIL

i’m also going to disagree w/ you on the f off point. in my little sheltered corner of the world, i would have fired phil the day after that shit if i were randy lerner. i realize i’m not, and i don’t have to deal w/ stewarding a billion dollar organization, but in my little fantasy here, savage would have been on the curb. to me, that’s not how my professional, whom i pay millions and millions of dollars to, should be acting and representing the team. it’s unacceptable to me.

but your last point is actually the most salient. the organization looks silly b/c it doesn’t win. winning’s got to be a combination of talent and coaching, right? well, 3 seasons out of 4 w/ 6 wins or fewer (i’m making an assumption on this year) tells me we have little of both.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m curious, did you protest the extension at the time it was given?

It seems like a surprise ten win season is a pretty strong reason to reward someone with a new contract. The fanbase mostly agreed at the time as well.

And what, exactly, is the reason you are angry at an extension being given?

It isn’t going to protect Romeo from being fired so why do you care?

by gahnki on Dec 3, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t recall if I expressed it openly, but in general I think a big reward like an extension should not be shelled out after one good season (particularly one where we didn’t make the playoffs.)

If I recall correctly, Romeo forced the issue pushing for a new contract, but I am not sure if he was threatening to resign or not.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 3, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But why do you care? What effect does it have on anything the Browns do in the future?

It surely has no effect on whether he is kept or not. So they gave him an extension; Butch Davis had an extension too. That didn’t stop that situation from taking place.

There is no discernible effect on an extension being given and the future of the Browns organization.

by gahnki on Dec 3, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the reason you care is that we now have to buy romeo out of some massive deal, instead of simply not renewing a contract after this year. i’m pretty sure we paid butch like $4mm LAST YEAR. how’s that taste? the more you have locked up in buyouts, the less you have to pay cowher, marty, bud carson, whomever (i realize there’s no coaching salary cap, but money doesn’t grow on trees, even for lerner).

and i did protest. 10-6 after 6-10 and 4-12 didn’t scream “extension” to me. i said let’s give him another year before we commit to several more.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the more you have locked up in buyouts, the less you have to pay cowher, marty, bud carson, whomever (i realize there’s no coaching salary cap, but money doesn’t grow on trees, even for lerner).

When has Lerner ever hesitated to do anything because of money?

The Browns annually are paying top dollar for free agents. Heck, I was listening to Bernie Kosar on the radio the other day, and he said we should be thankful that we have an owner who never lets money be an issue.

The buyout is irrelevant. If they want Romeo fired, do you really believe the buyout is going to dissuade them in the slightest? Take a look at the past history then. It has never dissuaded them before.

by gahnki on Dec 3, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the buyout definitely matters…especially in a recession that is being lead by the financial sector, where lerner’s wealth happens to be concentrated. what’s more, if we’re talking about buying out romeo AND savage potentially? that’s a lot of money, and absolutely factors into what pot is available to the next regime. not to mention, lerner is definitely looking at the past and cringing at the thought 2 coaches AGAIN.

furthermore, it points out the poor leadership of the organization. i’ll throw randy in with savage on this one to some extent, but savage is supposed to run the football organization. he saw fit to give romeo an extension last year…bad move. plain and simple, even if you don’t think the money matters (which it does), savage (and lerner, but less so than savage) thought romeo warranted a further commitment from the browns organization. a mere 6 months later, that has proven to be aggressively false.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

*the thought OF PAYING 2 coaches…doh

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is just a really weak argument overall. There is history to prove that Lerner has never shied away from spending for what he wants.

Furthermore, If the reports are to be believed, and the Browns are actually WILLING to pay 8-9 million for Cowher then it obviously isn’t a money issue at all. Time will surely tell.

by gahnki on Dec 3, 2008 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you don’t think that savage extending romeo was an error in judgement? let’s take money out of it altogether.

the argument started with you asking me to point out where savage has failed. you haven’t come anywhere close to convincing me that i’m wrong on any of the above points. nor have you convinced me that savage is any less responsible for the lack of wins than anyone else in the org.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Savage knows it isn’t his money. It was a no-risk, high reward position for him to be in. Extend RAC, and the team plays like it was supposed to, he looks like a genius. In the current situation, he might have to spend more of someone else’s money.

Lerner is smart enough to know that if the Browns don’t win, he is going to lose a lot more than the amount we are paying Romeo. He will pay what he has to to get the franchise to win. That’s the best way to make money in the NFL.

by rufio on Dec 5, 2008 3:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a pretty solid argument.

by rufio on Dec 3, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, Edwards didn’t stink last year — he was fantastic. That’s why I said that it’s not Phil’s fault that Braylon forgot how to catch the ball. If Braylon never knew how to catch the ball, and Phil drafted him, then that would be a dumb move.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 2, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I don’t want Savage in charge of the next Head Coach hiring search. Romeo’s done, so we’ll need a head coach.

I think we should hire a qualified and experienced president figure who can properly evaluate front office and coaching talent and have him make the hiring decisions. If that guy can convince Phil to stay as the head scout personnel guy, more power to him. Otherwise, no more, please.

by NickFantana on Dec 2, 2008 5:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

worth a read for its browns insight

interesting that banks’ sources don’t have a good read on savage’s future.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 2, 2008 6:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What is a GM's job?

That really is the question. Some see it as a talent acquirer and others see it as the “face” of the franchise who is the organizational leader and media communicator. In fact this was the issue between Savage and Collins. Collins wanted Savage to do less talent evaluations and more desk managing of others. I strongly believe that Phil seems himself has a talent acquirer and that’s it. The rest of the job is just crap he has to do but has little desire to do. He doesn’t care about what the fans think (f-u) or want to deal with the media at all, thus he spends little time improving upon those softer skills.

Savage may be a jerk (i have no idea), but he believes that his job is to get talent, right or wrong. This is my philosophy as well.

RAC on the other hand is by all accounts a great guy and his job is to win football games.

We have no idea what goes on between Phil and RAC. Right or wrong, their job performances are linked. They are in it together and it is hard to decifier the weaker link. I’m guessing they each think it is the other one, but Phil’s personality is to be more transparent and a “jerk” about it by calling out RAC even though RAC would never do that to Savage. I’m speculating that they haven’t seen eye to eye for some time (Carthon to Chud, staring qb, etc), but I think Savage has done a better job than RAC. I think it would be foolish to fire Savage at this point. I also think RAC deserves another year, too.

This team isn’t as bad as their record. By record, we overachieved last year and are underachieving this year. The talent is getting better, but it still isn’t there yet.

by dvd1204 on Dec 3, 2008 12:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

“This team isn’t as bad as their record.” I think there is some truth to this. A team is always as bad as its record, but we have the potential to be/play much much better than we did this year.

Phil just needs to stay away from the media. We pay him to make draft picks, sign FAs, compile a talented roster, and we should add “shut the hell up” to the job description. I don’t know of many GMs who are in the media all the time (but then again, I don’t follow any other football teams as closely).

by rufio on Dec 3, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

some stats i find interesting:

total defense (yards per game) rankings for the Cleveland Browns:
- ‘03: 15th
- ’04: 15th (Butch’s last year)
- ’05: 16th (Savage/Romeo first year)
- ’06: 27th
- ’07: 30th
- ’08 (to date): 26th (reminder: Savage/Romeo 4th year)

in my opinion, if you don’t think savage deserves to get ripped for being a horse’s ass, he should get ripped for stuff like this.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 6:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Football Outsiders has a far fairer picture with their DVOA statistic.

The Browns are at 18th this season which is the highest they’ve been since the 2003 season where they clocked in at 14th.

2003- 14th

2004- 23rd

2005- 24th

2006- 21st

2007- 22nd

2008- 18th

I know the DVOA stat has some weak points, but it is a much clearer stat than just using yards. While the Browns aren’t tearing it up out there, there has been some noticeable improvement over the past four years.

by gahnki on Dec 3, 2008 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i guess i don’t know a ton about DVOA, but your judgement of that stat as “far fairer” and “much clearer” sounds emotional. the wide swings from yardage (which is clearly a flawed stat) give me pause. i’ll have to learn more, but value over average or value over replacement stats always strike me as somewhat lacking.

but, i can find stats that back me up, too. on advancednflstats.com the browns come in w/ the 28th ranked defense in the league.

we can bicker about which stats are better than others, but the defensive changes have not posted the kind of results that you’d expect out of a heralded DC (romeo) coaching players who are selected by a ravens alum (savage).

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

last paragraph being my opinion, of course.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 3, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t the real job of the defense to give up as few points as possible? To that extent, the number of yards allowed isn’t really all that relevant – it’s more a matter of where the yards are surrendered than the number of yards allowed. For example, the yards allowed between the opponent’s 20 and mid-field are only genuinely relevant in terms of increasing the possibility for scoring points. Yards allowed from the 50 to your own 20 are actually much more critical to the performance of the defense in terms of scoring. Even looking at the number of points allowed, of course, isn’t a real measure of defensive efficiency either, since it is dependent on field position, which is determined by the offense. That’s one reason so many of these stats are inconclusive – there are simply too many variables. Without knowing a lot about it, I would say that DVOA might well be a better way to compare one defense to the league overage, which is at least somewhat meaningful.

by drjeo on Dec 4, 2008 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Our defense could theoretically let the other team move the ball an infinite amount of yards without allowing a score. Romeo likes to bend but not break.

by rufio on Dec 5, 2008 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“Far fairer” simply meant it was a better stat. Just looking at yardage is like only viewing batting average when considering a hitter’s merits. While it shows a general idea, it does not always result in the best information being shared. I do find DVOA needlessly complex at times, and not a tremendous improvement over “normal” stats, but it still takes a more inclusive look at a defense’s worth than just pure yardage.

I am not familiar with advancednflstats.com’s methods either so I have no idea what they believe in.

by gahnki on Dec 3, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

throwing numbers around without any sort of correlation or causality or even anecdotal evidence is hardly logical.

90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time.

by rufio on Dec 5, 2008 3:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s 75% correct.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 5, 2008 8:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And if you have to ask why, I won’t tell you.

by elsandito on Dec 5, 2008 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It is hardly directly Savage’s fault that the defense hasn’t played well. Are you kidding?

by rufio on Dec 5, 2008 3:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well, if you mean that it’s not savage who’s missing tackles or calling questionable schemes at times, then you’re right, he’s not directly responsible for the lackluster d.

however, as he likes to point out ad nauseum, savage is in charge of the 53. he put the current LB corps together, he was responsible for going into camp w/ a db stable of wright, holly and mcdonald, and he has drafted 32 players in the last 4 years—virtually an entire turnover of the defense from butch’s days. i’m not absolving romeo/tucke of any responsibility, but it’s not as though they’ve been handed the purple people eaters.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 8, 2008 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, they haven’t. But honestly, we can’t figure out how to score more than 10 against the Colts? Didn’t we only let the Steelers score 10, too? We are really competitive in a lot of these games, we just can’t find a way to get it done, which I thought was the coaches’ jobs.

If I were a coach, I would consider that my job.

You are right, it is not as if Romeo/Tucker have been handed the Bears defense of the 80s. But can you imagine how much better it would be for our defense if Terry Cousin/Mike Adams had to cover Roy Hall instead of Anthony Gonzolez? Thats what would be happening if Holly didn’t go down with that injury.

Right or wrong, this team’s best players have been collected mostly on the offensive side of the ball. The offense played very well last year and are expected to carry this team. The D was just supposed to be “good enough”, which I think it has been. Braylon, Kellen, DA, Brady, Joe T, Shaffer, Tucker, Jamal Lewis, Stallworth, Harrison and Jurevicious have all done way less than we expect of them this year. A lot of that is injuries, some of that is mental mistakes, some of that is the coaches refusing to play people. Stallworth is really the only guy you can say Savage spent recklessly on. If the rest of that bunch is playing like they would in an average year, our D can let up 20 points/game and we will be fine.

by rufio on Dec 12, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

booooo....

romeo is not a general… but the guy is a good man… and he didnt deserve to be thrown under the bus… not like that….

savage’s record as a gm is mixed at best…. joe thomas… brady quinn seem okay… but kam? nyquill wilson… b.e.? hes missed on a lot of early picks… he failed to get rid of DA when he was worth something… he mortgaged the future of this franchise… for a year that the browns will finish well under .500…

id like to see lerner get rid of savage… im not sure where the core players are on this team… after 4 years… that doesnt speak well of the gm…

by thelonius7 on Dec 6, 2008 9:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

You’re not terribly bright if you consider Edwards a miss.

by fwembt on Dec 6, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Braylon

Really? “Not terribly bright if you consider Edwards a miss?” How much of his career have you seen?

One great year, but 2006 wasn’t that impressive, and his 2008 season will be the punch line of many bar room jokes in the coming decades. He is already laughed at around the league. He is shaping up like a poor man’s Andre Rison – great talent that was thrown away. But at least Rison had more than one good year.

by Pruitt on Dec 6, 2008 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Edwards career track, drops and all, is basically the same as TO’s at this point. That isn’t even close to a miss. Given the two guys throwing him the ball this year, you consider this a miss? What more do you want? He’s the best WR from that draft and quite possibly the best offensive player taken. Calling him a miss is nothing more than the typical knee-jerk idiocy that so plagues this fan base.

by fwembt on Dec 7, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look, we’re on the same side, so I’ll calm it down, but there is something wrong with Edwards this year. His head seems messed up.

Sadly, the Browns don’t have a coaching staff so no one can work with the kid.

by Pruitt on Dec 7, 2008 1:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll agree that there is something wrong with his head, but that doesn’t make him a miss. I don’t think this is a coaching staff problem either, do you think that no one has told him anything or tried to work with him on his catching? I like the idea of Marty taking over next year, but the coaches aren’t to blame for Braylon’s drops.

by fwembt on Dec 8, 2008 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He has played poorly this year, for sure. But this is the worst year he will ever have in his career, and its not because he never will be a force in this league, its because he is just in a slump.

fwembt is right, looking back on that draft we could have done a whole lot worse.

Even after this year the Titans almost unanimously chose Braylon as the one Brown they would want, drops and all. I think that says a lot.

by rufio on Dec 12, 2008 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Titans fans

by rufio on Dec 12, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i’m as negative on savage as anyone around here lately, but i can’t get behind you here, bro.

edwards is definitely not a miss. one year removed from a record setting, Pro Bowl performance and you’re dismissing him? even if he’d dropped every ball this year he’s still not a miss.

and i refuse to take savage out for not moving DA last off-season. again, a Pro Bowl, record setting performance and you wanted phil to trade him so Brady Quinn, he of 8 professional passes, could take over? that’s too much revisionist history, my man. resigning anderson was the only choice. it sucks that it didn’t work out.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 8, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How can anyone write that he’s a good/great/decent talent evaluator?

Where is the talent on this team? Other than the O-Line and QB, this team is no better off than it was 4 years ago. 4-8. Underline that… 4-8 with an epic rout on the horizon against the Titans.

How’s that Linebacker corps? That Donte Stallworth sure was a nifty signing. No point trading Anderson when there was a chance now was there?

We have to face it, it’s time to gut the team and the Coaches once again. We deserve better than these idiots.

by Pruitt on Dec 6, 2008 11:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Here and thank you for that cogent and intelligent comment.

by fwembt on Dec 7, 2008 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Link not working.

by rufio on Dec 12, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oops, already been said.

by rufio on Dec 12, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your link was taken down. Coming from a Chelski front runner, I’m sure it was something really funny!!!!!

by Pruitt on Dec 7, 2008 1:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I was cleveland.com. I just did it wrong. My family is from Chelsea, so I don’t really consider it front running.

by fwembt on Dec 8, 2008 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I apologize then.

by Pruitt on Dec 9, 2008 6:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think people have made the point time and again that Savage is at least above average in the draft. You don’t have to agree, but bringing up 1 or 2 guys he signed that didn’t work out isn’t going to work.

Our D line is better than anything we have ever had except maybe for the 1 or 2 days when Brown and Warren were both healthy and productive. Our starting 4 in the secondary, believe it or not, are better than any time since Savage has taken over at least. Everyone fears our offense when Braylon is catching. Jamal Lewis—even now—is better than Jamel White, William Green, Lee Suggs….Vickers is the best fullback we have had since the return. Josh Cribbs.

There are a lot of factors leading in to a winning football team. The 53 players are more talented than 4-9.

by rufio on Dec 12, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs