Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: Coverage of the 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing'

BREAKING: Browns Release Shaun Rogers and Five Others

The Cleveland Browns released defensive end Shaun Rogers on Wednesday, ending the veteran lineman's three-year run with the team. Rogers was not healthy most of last season and played in only a little over a third of the team's snaps. With the uncertainty of the Browns' defensive scheme next season, it was believed that Rogers would play a role in either one. Now it appears that the defensive line position will be an even greater priority for head coach general manager Tom Heckert.

Rogers wasn't the only player released. Here are the players who were released:

I can't complain about releasing the bottom five players. In fact, I particularly applaud the fact that St. Clair and Royal will not be returning next season. Barton, Bowens, and Coleman did what they were asked to for the Browns, but I think releasing them is the right move if we want to commit to a younger, faster defense.

Rogers was set to make $5.5 million next year with a $500,000 roster bonus. Combined, the Browns cleared $16.34 million by releasing all of the veterans above. What are your thoughts on these roster moves?

Comment 289 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Add Kenyon Coleman to the list. My thoughts? We better be signing alot of free agents or drafting some DL very early int he draft. We’ve got Rubin and nothing else right now basically.

by homerun21 on Feb 9, 2011 6:41 PM EST reply actions  

I believed that Roger could really help in the switch to the 4-3 but in Heckert I trust!

by CoyG Biv on Feb 9, 2011 6:41 PM EST reply actions  

It’s official – you were right.

by Dawg Nuts on Feb 9, 2011 6:51 PM EST up reply actions  

So much for positivity, eh?

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 9, 2011 6:53 PM EST up reply actions  

kvetch, kvetch, kvetch….

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 9, 2011 6:59 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Hahaha, this coming from someone who was ready to cut Rogers. I think these moves were expected with or without Mangini

by Roger Dorn on Feb 9, 2011 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly right. Heckert himself said that the Browns wanted to get younger on defense and there was going to be a lot of turnover even without a coaching change. But I guess it’s more fun to say that releasing a bunch of old, below-average or frequently injured players is “blowing up the team.”

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 9, 2011 8:08 PM EST up reply actions  

it’s already been blowed up. this is just icing.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 9, 2011 8:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Are you serious? How exactly has this team been blown up? What key players have we lost? Teams lose players from the middle to bottom of their roster every year; I don’t consider that blowing things up. All of our key young players who will be part of our future for the next 3-4 years will be returning — those players are a much bigger part of this team than the guys we’ve released. I’m not saying that some of them won’t be missed, but I don’t see how that’s blowing up the team.

I know some people like having fun with this, but let’s be serious for a moment here. None of these players were going to be an important part of this team’s future. We’re in a transition but we’re not blowing up anything.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 9, 2011 8:16 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

diasgree.

We had a DECENT-GOOD defense, which yes, could have used some youth.

we are gutting parts of that unit (which could be a good/bad thing, but the unit wasn’t bad to begin with) in order to switch schemes and START OVER.

that is the definition of “blowing it up”, is it not?

by discoinferno083 on Feb 9, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions  

To him it’s not blow up because two men kept there jobs.

Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.

by North Coast Flea on Feb 10, 2011 4:18 PM EST up reply actions  

No, it’s all good because only Holmgren and Heckert’s desk stayed the same. Don’t mind the rest of the turnover in the front office, those two define a blow – up, bud.

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2011 4:21 PM EST up reply actions  

I consider “blowing it up” to mean the players, not the coaching staff. (Also, we haven’t had one hundred percent turnover in the coaching staff.) Plenty of teams have hired new coaching staffs and got better the next year, so I don’t see how a new coaching staff means you’re blowing up the team.

The most important part of a team is the front office. That’s been shown time and time again in the NFL. Teams with a good front office can hire new coaches and draft new players and keep winning. Our front office has made many great moves since they took over and Heckert has a proven track record in Philly so I think we’re in good hands with him.

We’ve got a strong base of young players to build around and that is the future of our team. Getting rid of some of those players would be “blowing it up”, not guys on the wrong side of 30 who aren’t part of our future. Trading away players like Edwards and Winslow two years ago, that’s what I consider blowing it up — not releasing the players we did.

I don’t mind having a thoughtful, reasonable discussion about the moves we’re making and disagreements about personnel or coaches. But I’m tired of every single thread this offseason getting littered with the-sky-is-falling type of hyperbole and exaggeration. The core players we want to build around are still here. I don’t consider that blowing things up and I don’t think most people do, either.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Plenty of teams have hired new coaching staffs and got better the next year, so I don’t see how a new coaching staff means you’re blowing up the team.

The question of how many teams can get better within a season of “blowing it up” is a different question than whether a give circumstance meets that label, though.

But I’m tired of every single thread this offseason getting littered with the-sky-is-falling type of hyperbole and exaggeration.

I can see that, although conversely, I think some people are getting a little tired of the relentless optimism, insistence that this is not a major rebuild, and mantras of In X We Trust!, which I can also see.

It’s all about balance….

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 11, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t really see much relentless optimism on this site; in my opinion, there is rampant negativity and exaggerated distress about our situation. I don’t see anyone who’s being positive repeatedly making snarky comments like have appeared on this thread and many others. I have no problem with people giving dissenting opinions, but let’s have an actual discussion about facts instead of constant hyperbole.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2011 12:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Well, being on one side of the divide BB, I’m sure you would see it that way. From my perspective, I’m finding In X We Trust! to be nearing the relentlessly optimistic, and while it’s not snark, to my eye it’s sure repetitive and not a whole lot more substantiated than a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Regardless, see it as you wish. I’m just fleshing in a little of what I see on that side
  
Anyway, I think DBN would suffer a noticeable hit if snarky comments were devalued!

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 13, 2011 9:56 AM EST up reply actions  

relapse said it really well. the concepts of blowing it up and being successful w/in a year are not mutually exclusive. but in a year when you are completely changing both your base offense AND base defense — each of which have been in place for multiple years — that is the very definition of blowing it up.

for me, the blow up has a lot less to do w/ the players, and a lot more to do w/ the systems into which the players are being plugged. players will play, and it’s very hard to fire all the players, so a blow up has to be more about the use of those players.

to relapse’s balance point, which is also very well stated, to expect this year to be anything other than a total mystery is setting oneself up for disappointment (but we’re used to that as browns fans). i’m not predicting 0-16, but i’m sure not anticipating a rookie head coach calling all his own plays and a brand new defensive alignment to yield much.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 11, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Well I guess I’m interpreting it differently than you. When I hear that we’re blowing up the team, I think that means we’re trading away or releasing players to rebuild (like Mangini did when he took over). I don’t really consider a coaching change to be blowing up the team. Our front office is still in place and so are our most important players so we still have a solid foundation. We may be changing coaching staff and schemes but that’s not what I think of when I hear that we’re blowing up the team.

I’m not saying anything at all about my expectations this year; I’m just tired of every thread this past month concerning any offseason move to be led with snarky comments saying “look, we’re blowing up the team again!” That’s not a discussion of how this move affects us or what the coaching change is going to mean, it’s just an exaggeration of our situation by people who are still upset that Mangini was fired. It’s getting really old.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2011 12:22 AM EST up reply actions  

Lemme just interject here that if we have to “blow it up” to do better than
5-11 year after year, I will volunteer to push the plunger.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is. -- Yogi Berra

by JustPlainBrowns on Feb 11, 2011 9:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t remember him saying this. Not saying you are lying, just a quote or link by someone would be nice.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 9, 2011 9:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Haha, no thanks, not searching through the archives. But if golan would like to deny or confirm, I’d be okay with that.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions  

I could have said it, depending on context. I don’t specifically remember saying it, though.

If I did, it was probably sometime just after Rogers got injured last season when everybody was calling me batshit crazy for insisting that our run D would improve with Rogers out and Tuba at Nose.

I’ve wanted to trade Rogers for a couple of years now. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 10, 2011 11:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Yea, probably trading him, but I think it was the idea that you were ok moving on without him. I don’t think there was a big market for him given his salary and injury problems.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2011 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Quick look at the archives. I didn’t find any instance of me calling for Rogers to be cut, but I did find this gem:

Terry Pluto Discusses the Thought of Trading Shaun Rogers — golanbatrac v. bross — Round 1

That’s about as much as I ever had to say on Rogers.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 10, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Those were the days…

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

LMAO! Good link

"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden

by Kimble_79 on Feb 10, 2011 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

A 3rd would have been the winner. Nice call. I have to say I was disappointed in the output this year.

It;s the same as the Wimbley situation to an extent. A 3rd seems low, but you can’t really expect more for the guy.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2011 11:28 PM EST up reply actions  

oh, I wasn’t talking about what golan said about Rogers being cut, but what heckert said. that will likely be easier to find.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 10, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions  

I know I read that in some article in the PD. I think it was when they were discussing if we were going to transistion to a new defense; he said they were going to try to get younger no matter if they stayed with a 3-4 or moved to a 4-3.

We had the 3rd oldest roster in the NFL last year. That’s not what a team who’s building for the future wants to have; we’re not a veteran team trying to win the SB now.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I did read that stat about the old roster. And the cuts do make it pretty obvious they were trying to get younger.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 12, 2011 1:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Ha. Knew you’d say that.

by emily522 on Feb 9, 2011 8:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, at least we’re not blowing anything up this year.

Though I fear the blowup, this is not it. Getting rid of older or under performing players is not a problem. Bowens is probably the closest to being a real loss. He had a pretty good year for a player of his experience but I doubt he’ll be starting anywhere else next year. If we start seeing former Browns 1-3 picks getting discarded, then I’ll complain.

Brownsyup

by Brownsyup on Feb 10, 2011 8:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Thank you. I wish we could discuss these things sensibly instead of always resorting to hyperbole. I know it’s funny sometimes but it gets old after a while.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Getting rid of aging dead weight is blowing things up? All those guys are dregs.

Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"

by realmccoy on Feb 11, 2011 9:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Wow. I’ll reserve judgement for now, but unless we are making some big moves, this is a mistake. Shaun Rogers had already proven to be very well suited to a 4-3. He was still probably our best defender when healthy.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 6:46 PM EST reply actions  

 * slaps forehead *

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 9, 2011 6:52 PM EST up reply actions  

It’s official – you were right.

by Dawg Nuts on Feb 9, 2011 6:52 PM EST up reply actions  

At least we still have Delhomme

not for long, according to rotoworld…

/slow clap

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Thank the gods.

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 10, 2011 5:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Shaun had become a part-time part-timer. At his age and given his shape/condition it’s better to get rid of him, rather than overpay him. He’ll sign for a fraction of that amount somewhere. I’d be happy if it were Cleveland, but not at $5mill.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

by Spidey on Feb 9, 2011 6:47 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

I think salary was the main reason for Rogers. He is definitely overpaid. I also think he wasn’t too happy here and hasn’t been for a while. I don’t think he’ll start anywhere next year and will probably sit a lot because of injuries.

Brownsyup

by Brownsyup on Feb 10, 2011 9:00 AM EST up reply actions  

Happy with all of those

Except I thought Rogers and Rubin would have been a really good pair of DTs

Now we definitely have to address both DE and DT in freeagency/draft. more of a priority than WR imo.

by Manoovi on Feb 9, 2011 6:49 PM EST reply actions  

DE, DT, DE, Depth at DT and Depth at DE.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 9, 2011 6:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I wouldnt be surprised if our first 3 picks were exactly that (DE, DT, DE)

We definitely need some WR, LB, and CB/S mixed in, but this rebuild/switch to a 4-3 is going to take a solid 2-3 years to complete. So we might as well try to get the most important pieces (D line) with the early picks

by Manoovi on Feb 9, 2011 10:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Not to disagree on the urgency of building the d-line, but IMO if we ignore our needs at o-line (RT) and WR until the 4th round, barring some really good FA pickups our ‘new defense’ will be seeing lots of action next season.

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi

by burntorangeandbrown on Feb 10, 2011 9:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Don’t forget that before injuries, the Pashos/Womack or Womack/Luvao or Yates combo worked pretty well on the right side. Carlton Mitchell needs more playing time and Robo seemed to be developing well, and. Evan Moore could be a stud if used more often. I think our current recs and maybe a late round burner will do fine with an offensive minded coaching staff.

by HenryDawg on Feb 10, 2011 11:18 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Hard for me to get too excited about Mitchell. Moore is developing well at TE (and Watson is looking pretty good), but when Robo is your best (and arguably only real #1) WR its a little sad for an offense planning to transition to a WCO scheme.

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi

by burntorangeandbrown on Feb 10, 2011 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I think our current recs and maybe a late round burner will do fine with an offensive minded coaching staff.

there is no way that this can be true. these wide receivers suck … hard. and “late round burners” hit at about a 1 in 50 rate, so i’m not sure how that helps.

wr is a MAJOR area of need for this team.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes. The Browns WR’s sucked. Or at least they appeared to. But in reality it is the O-lines job to buy them time to get open. The Browns have a great left half 0-line, but as a unit, their strength is in the run. This is the NFL and when your QB’s getting sacked, knocked down and/or pressured every time he drops back, even the best WR corp isn’t goin to be effective. Robi and MoMass(got Stafford drafted #1 overall) have potential to be good on other teams. The 2011 Browns will be an ‘other’ team. Mitchell has yet to be a bust. Along with Cribbs, Stuckey and most importantly a real #1WR, there is potential there for McCoy to shine. Ultimately though, it will depend on completing the right side of the o-line.

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions  

mitchell has yet to be anything at all, so i can’t give him credit for not being a bust.

and you’re seriously citing cribbs and stuckey as valuable pieces of a receiving corps? that’s just silly.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions  

These wide receivers aren’t nearly as bad as you make them out to be. Even Holmgren has said so.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 3:47 PM EST up reply actions  

other than “we don’t throw to the wr’s” and “the wr’s are all playing out of position”, there’s not been a single argument posted on these pages that supports the skills of these receivers.

until i see something on the field/in the numbers, i will maintain that this receiver group is the worst in the nfl, and it’s not particularly close.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Robo was open all day during the second Ravens game.

Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.

by North Coast Flea on Feb 10, 2011 4:33 PM EST up reply actions  

you want me to just take your word for it?

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 4:38 PM EST up reply actions  

You expect me to give you film of every play?

Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.

by North Coast Flea on Feb 10, 2011 5:10 PM EST up reply actions  

well, something that will help me understand the difference between being “open all day” and a stat line of: 2 catches, 35 yards (including 1 29-yarder on a trick play from massaquoi)

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it if you don’t want, and I can’t think of a stat that would back it up. The only evidence I can provide is that the man in charge seems to think he’s alright, and I remember seeing him open a lot. There are besides him sucking why he didn’t get many receptions.

We are all aware of how long it takes receivers to develop. Robi had over three hundred yards last year, and while that certainly isn’t anything to write home about, it isn’t really out of line with many guys who went on to become solid NFL wide receivers. I believe Brian has that in him. Time will tell which of us is correct.

Then again, I’m more than a bit biased when it comes to Robi.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I can show this. They are not as awful as you think. They aren’t great, but they aren’t awful.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 9:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Mass’s rookie numbers were not bad. Not number 1 quality, but there is reason to believe he can be a 2.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that’s the point really (at least from my viewpoint). We have ONE legit number 1 WR in Robiskie, and he is really still somewhat of an unknown / unproven quantity. He seems to be developing well, but I certainly wouldn’t call him a big time playmaker. I think we really need to have one or two VERY good wideouts if we are going to be implementing a productive WCO style offense with some teeth. Don’t you?

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi

by burntorangeandbrown on Feb 11, 2011 9:59 AM EST up reply actions  

We have ONE legit number 1 WR in Robiskie

maybe we have different definitions of a “number 1 WR”, but robiskie isn’t even in the zip code of a number 1 WR

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 11, 2011 12:30 PM EST up reply actions  

in my opinion, its debatable whether Robi is in the zip code of a #2 WR at this point.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 11, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t disagree. I’m just supporting the viewpoint that the Browns have no real talent at WR.

Let me re-phrase:
We have ONE legit number 1 WR in Robiskie
The Browns have only one guy on their roster (Robiskie) who even comes close to being a 1 WR.

This is all I’m saying.

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi

by burntorangeandbrown on Feb 11, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I think Robiskie and Massaquoi can be at least as good as Donald Driver/James Jones/Jordy Nelson, we just need Greg Jennings.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 11, 2011 9:49 PM EST up reply actions  

We have ONE legit number 1 WR in Robiskie

Are we talking about the same guy?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Feb 11, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

And that would not be good for a bunch of rookies that have never played more than 13 games in a season. Drafting all D line is too dumb for even Mangini.

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Does anyone think these cuts push us in the direction of 4-3 vs. 3-4, ignoring the fact that Jauron has historically run a 4-3?

Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.

by Chris Pokorny on Feb 9, 2011 6:57 PM EST reply actions  

I think getting rid of Coleman is probably a sign that we are moving that way, from what little I understand.

I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.

by JustBob on Feb 9, 2011 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes. Anytime you cut four veteran contributors to your defense, it is a sign that you are changing systems. Those guys, with the exception of Rogers, are all more of 3-4 guys and Coleman, Barton and Bowens in particular were kept around to help teach that system. So, yes, it looks like there is going to be some kind of major change to the system.

I don’t like these defensive moves at all. We just don’t have enough talent on our team to let Rogers go, and each of the other three might be legitimate candidates for cutting but all three means we are just really throwing out any continuity from last year (except in the secondary).

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion.

by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 9, 2011 7:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Hey, not really related… But I noticed your avatar is still Rob Ryan :p

by shep615 on Feb 9, 2011 8:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:25 AM EST up reply actions  

I’m expecting a pretty active free agency period after this. I wonder if there will be any other cuts. I definitely don’t mind losing St. Claire, and Royal wasn’t one of my faves, but we are going to need another TE who can block.

I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.

by JustBob on Feb 9, 2011 7:00 PM EST reply actions  

Myself, I expect Robiskie to step up into this critical Browns role….

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 9, 2011 8:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Brian Robiskie has great hands. If we’re looking to someone to drop passes, it’ll probably be momass.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 9:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I guarantee that Robiskie will not drop all the passes he’s not thrown because he’s not open.

"Magic would be getting productivity out of Crowe or Valbuena. I’ll admit we could use a little luck, but that’s not the same thing." - Jay

by woodsmeister on Feb 10, 2011 9:22 AM EST up reply actions  

I can’t prove this because I don’t have tape, but Robi was open a lot. Our QBs just didn’t throw to wide receivers.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 9:24 AM EST up reply actions  

Our QBs just didn’t throw to wide receivers.

Especially true if they were anywhere down field.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is. -- Yogi Berra

by JustPlainBrowns on Feb 10, 2011 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Robi was open a lot

Did you see him open on many deep routes? (just curious – I don’t know if he was or not).
Robiskie seems to be our only current / legit threat at WR going into 2011. Do you think Mitchell is going to be any good?
I haven’t seen much of him but from what I know about him its hard for me to be too optimistic.

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi

by burntorangeandbrown on Feb 10, 2011 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

If Mitchell could catch a cold he’d be pretty good. Early in the year Robi was open on a couple deep routes, but Wallace doesn’t know where the sideline is so that was wasted. I don’t think going deep will ever be his strength, but aside from Evan Moore he’s the only guy on our team I think could win a jump ball.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 3:50 PM EST up reply actions  

The WRs in our offense last year ran far too many deep routes, which I think was part of the problem.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 9:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Our QBs just didn’t throw to wide receivers.

/facepalm

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 1:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Seriously. Watch the Holmgren midseason press conference. He states that the offense is designed to go through the middle to the backs and tight ends.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

so, the offense was designed to go away from good receivers and instead to backs and tight ends? that makes exactly zero sense.

couldn’t it possibly be that the receivers stunk, and as a result the offense HAD to go through the backs and tight ends?

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 4:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Deities preserve us from another season of arguments about whether our WRs suck, our offensive schemes suck, our QBs suck, or all of the above.

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 10, 2011 5:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I’ll take all of the above for $200, Alex.

I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.

by JustBob on Feb 10, 2011 5:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed.

But Daboll did suck — didn’t he?

Wow. Seems like so long ago already…

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is. -- Yogi Berra

by JustPlainBrowns on Feb 10, 2011 10:21 PM EST up reply actions  

No it doesn’t make sense. If it made sense our coach wouldn’t have been fired.

It could also be that we were protecting terrible QBs from making risky throws while also getting the ball in the hands of our best offensive weapons. Watson was one of the leagues best TEs last year, and we are all aware of Peyton Hillis.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 8:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Nothing about our passing offense made sense last year.

Ok, not nothing, but still.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 9:50 PM EST up reply actions  

You’re saying this in ignorance.

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2011 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

ignorance of what, exactly?

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 4:39 PM EST up reply actions  

you have to stop making comments like this.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 8:30 PM EST up reply actions  

I see nothing wrong with it. Don’t go all mod on me, bro. You’re my dude/

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2011 8:31 PM EST up reply actions  

If you’re going to say someone is being ignorant—which is bending the rules a bit in the first place—at least provide a reason why.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 8:36 PM EST up reply actions  

There is nothing wrong with the word ignorant bro. It just means you don’t understand. But yes, elaboration would’ve probably been a good idea.

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2011 8:38 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t know if I just haven’t conversed with you guys enough to miss the ironic usage, but if you’re actually using “bro” regularly in conversation I consider this a far more ban-able offense than slinging around accusations of ignorance.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Feb 10, 2011 8:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I just used bro twice because “come at me bro” was in my head and I had used it in my first reply to him.

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2011 9:05 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree. Ban his ass.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 11, 2011 8:28 AM EST up reply actions  

You need a haircut.

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 11, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions  

It’s gotta be Stuckey. He likes to drop them after the catch though. Actually I’m hoping he’ll be cut after the final pre-season game. If Stuckeys the worst reciever we have then, we should be pretty decent at the position.

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions  

edwards is a free agent, maybe we can get him back……

Every day may not be good, but there's something good in every day.

by allsides on Feb 9, 2011 9:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Hell NO!

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Well with the way he snatches the ball outta the air, its not gonna be Alex Mack.

I live for Christ the KING.

by jlsclarity on Feb 9, 2011 10:27 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

And the implosion begins.

The voice of youthful optimism.

by brownsboy14 on Feb 9, 2011 7:09 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Who’s going the superbowl next year? WE’RE GOING TO THE SUPERBOWL NEXT YEAR.

"Quote goes here."

by Adrock2099 on Feb 9, 2011 7:10 PM EST reply actions  

Also keep in mind that Robaire Smith is set to be a free agent in 2011, so he won’t be back either.

Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.

by Chris Pokorny on Feb 9, 2011 7:10 PM EST reply actions  

he’s probably retiring anyway.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 7:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Whatever happened to Jayme Mitchell?

by Clevo's Finest on Feb 9, 2011 7:18 PM EST reply actions  

He’s a free agent.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 9, 2011 7:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Still with the Browns, for now.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 9, 2011 7:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Can they get any dumber at the Plain Dealer?

Jauron is in the process of converting the Browns to a 4-3 scheme.
Rogers, who was acquired by former Browns General Manager Phil Savage in a 2008 trade with the Lions for Leigh Bodden and the Browns’ third-round pick, was made expendable in part because Ahtyba Rubin emerged as a premier nose tackle.

Spot the inconsistencies.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion.

by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 9, 2011 7:46 PM EST reply actions  

the parts not in bold?

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 7:49 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah, wtf are you saying?

by discoinferno083 on Feb 9, 2011 7:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I think he’s referring to them saying “nose tackle,” but if we’re going to a 4-3, they are “defensive tackles.”

Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.

by Chris Pokorny on Feb 9, 2011 7:53 PM EST up reply actions  

i kind of get it, but i can also see, based on the tenses, how it’s not inconsistent.

Rubin outplayed him (at his position in THIS year’s scheme and made him expendable)

by discoinferno083 on Feb 9, 2011 7:55 PM EST up reply actions  

See my comment below — in a 4-3, you rarely have a true nose tackle in the mold of Rubin, but even that notwithstanding, you need two DTs in a 4-3 so there is no way that the emergence of one DT in Rubin makes the other DT expendable when we literally have no other competent DTs at all.

The tense issue that you hit on makes no sense — the issue is whether he has been made expendable — i.e., is he expendable today, not in the middle of last season.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion.

by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 9, 2011 8:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Ah, I see. We do still need another DT.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:28 AM EST up reply actions  

Rubin will fit in a 3-4, 4-3..it doesn’t matter. He’s a good player period.

by homerun21 on Feb 9, 2011 7:53 PM EST up reply actions  

We need two defensive tackles in a 4-3 so the fact that Rubin played well does not make our only other reasonably good DT expendable at all.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion.

by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 9, 2011 8:07 PM EST up reply actions  

The fact he only played a 1/3 of the snaps this year does to me. Was he good, yes…Is he still good, sort of. He’s expendable to me.

"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden

by Kimble_79 on Feb 10, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions  

according to pro football focus he played 738 defensive snaps or 67% of Cle’s defensie snaps

by sleepy042 on Feb 10, 2011 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

That statistic would have to be greatly inaccurate. I’m not sure if Rubin even played that much.

Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.

by Chris Pokorny on Feb 10, 2011 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Rubin will fit in a 3-4, 4-3

I don’t know enough to know whether that is true or not, but I don’t think anyone really knows. The guy seemed to flourish in our 3-4 system, it would not be very surprising to see that he does not fit a 4-3 where the role of a DT is usually much different from the role of a 3-4 nose tackle.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion.

by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 9, 2011 8:10 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought that Rubin showed some pretty good mobility. He was much more than just a big body in the middle, so I could see him being flexible enough to fir in a 4-3. But as was pointed out, we are now one starting DT short of a 4-3. I’m guessing they will find a starter in FA and a backup to develop later in the draft maybe.

I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.

by JustBob on Feb 9, 2011 9:49 PM EST up reply actions  

we are now one starting DT short of a 4-3.

That, and two starting DEs.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion.

by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 10, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions  

And depth at both positions.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 10, 2011 11:55 AM EST up reply actions  

I think he can be our 1-tech. It all depends what Jauron wants to do, which we have pretty much no clue about right now, other than his previous defenses.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Some 4-3 schemes still designate one of the DTs as the “nose-tackle”

example:
Philadelphia Eagles used Mike Patterson as the NT, with Broderick Bunkley/Antonio Dixon as the second DT. Their roles were almost identical, but Patterson was the guy who clogged up more space and was bigger than the other DT

by Manoovi on Feb 9, 2011 10:07 PM EST up reply actions  

That’s true. With two NT types simply clogging up the middle you need two very good ends to generate the rush: I’m thinking Mann & Manley in Washington. A system I quite like but I’m in a minority. The contemporary vikings team had Thomas at NT and Millard in a rush DT mode, almost DE, which allowed Doleman to play a pure rushing DE from outside of the TE’s shoulder.

Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!

by LondonBrown on Feb 9, 2011 10:13 PM EST up reply actions  

There is a nose tackle in many 4-3 defenses. He just lines up as a 1 technique instead of (mostly) a 0, and is sometimes called a “shade”.

When you see a college team switch their formation’s strength and the defense flip-flops the DTs, that’s because they have one guy who is the 1-tech and another who is the 3-tech and they aren’t versatile enough to switch.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:27 AM EST up reply actions  

When you see a college team switch their formation’s strength and the defense flip-flops the DTs, that’s because they have one guy who is the 1-tech and another who is the 3-tech and they aren’t versatile enough to switch.

In high school, we called that our Bear and Wolf packages.

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2011 8:21 AM EST up reply actions  

I really think that we did need to change our front 7. Quite simply it wasn’t very good . At least the secondary seems to be holding intact. I mean how many “good” players did we cut here. Coleman is a good depth guy, but Rogers wasn’t really contributing much this year. He was playing maybe 25 snaps a game, I can’t argue that cutting him makes sense with him due 5.5 million. But cutting Barton, Royal, St. Clair? Yawn, warm bodies can replace them and you wouldn’t notice.

by homerun21 on Feb 9, 2011 7:47 PM EST reply actions   2 recs

Rogers was hurt all year. He probably isn’t worth his contract anymore, but we are not going to find a better tackle in free agency.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 7:50 PM EST up reply actions  

You are probably right, but his impact is far less than it was when we signed him. He plays a little under half the time. I understand why they moved on.

by homerun21 on Feb 9, 2011 7:51 PM EST up reply actions  

well, he played less than half the time coming off of a pretty severe leg injury. hard to project that moving into next year.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 9, 2011 8:14 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree with this. I also think we probably could have gotten a 6th or 7th rounder for him.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Probably. But its a risk/reward scenario. Late round reward is not worth it.

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah, I’m missing the risk part of this.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 8:30 PM EST up reply actions  

What risk?

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Players can’t be traded until there’s a new CBA; teams can only trade draft picks for draft picks. At least that’s what I’ve heard from many sources.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Grossi mentioned this in his article SiP posted, but he only mentions it relating to draft day trades in the event of a lockout.

by Villeslgr on Feb 12, 2011 9:33 PM EST up reply actions  

I kind of agree with this, but think Bowens would have been useful depth at 4-3 DE

Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!

by LondonBrown on Feb 9, 2011 9:20 PM EST up reply actions  

this is tough, but generally makes sense.

Rogers hurts, but the money helps.
Bowens should have at least gotten the chance to fight for a spot/mentor the young guys (cliche, but DRASTICALLY important)

St. Clair sucked and it’s about time.

better see some FA moves.

by discoinferno083 on Feb 9, 2011 7:54 PM EST reply actions  

Maybe I’m wrong but don’t we have around 50 million in free agency to spend now?

by homerun21 on Feb 9, 2011 7:55 PM EST reply actions  

i smell Fitzgerald.

are there any big-name, big-talent D players who will be available via trade/FA?

by discoinferno083 on Feb 9, 2011 7:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Larry Fitzgerald?

Oh god please!

Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!

by LondonBrown on Feb 9, 2011 10:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Fitzgerald is still under contract and Az. would want to much in trade for him.
Probably our 1st and 2nd rd picks.

Not a very good deal when you just blew up your defense.

But Vincent Jackson could be signed unless he is franchised tagged…

by Brwnstown on Feb 9, 2011 10:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, I thought Fitzgerlad wasn’t up for grabs, if that makes sense.

Be nice to blow some cash on a good WR.

Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!

by LondonBrown on Feb 9, 2011 10:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Based on last year, I half expect Jackson to be franchise tagged by SD purely out of spite, even if there are no other compelling reasons to do so.

"Magic would be getting productivity out of Crowe or Valbuena. I’ll admit we could use a little luck, but that’s not the same thing." - Jay

by woodsmeister on Feb 10, 2011 9:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Yup. SD is not a good place to be for a player.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion.

by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 10, 2011 10:22 AM EST up reply actions  

Does anybody know how franchise tags will work considering the current (lack of a) cba?

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 11:27 PM EST up reply actions  

As of right now the Players believe there shouldn’t be one. The Owners think there should be.

Seriously, these guys are unreal right now.

by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 9, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions  

I meant more along the lines of whether or not teams are allowed to franchise a guy right now, even though the CBA is set to expire.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 11:34 PM EST up reply actions  

The owners position is franchise tag time is now (for a 2 week period?) and the CBA actually expires in March. So you can tag players.

Whether the tag stands when the agreement it is based on expires is a moot point.

Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!

by LondonBrown on Feb 10, 2011 7:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok, I think that answers my question. I was curious about this because a lot of other rules were changed this past year, such as the cap being removed, and I didn’t know if the franchise tag was retained.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 8:33 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the franchise tag deadline is the 22nd or something. The Colts are talking about using it on Peyton to buy themselves more time to discuss a long term deal.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 10:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I was expecting Rogers to go, I had almost posted that much in the thread about the salary cap the other day, my guess was we would be even lower. Can’t say I am too disappointed. The guy is a talent….when motivated and healthy. We didn’t get a whole lot of that the past 2 years, unfortunately.

I am the most surprised by Coleman going, but think it’s definitely a signal that we are moving to a 4-3.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 9, 2011 8:03 PM EST reply actions  

No more Barton Island. I am sad.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 9, 2011 8:25 PM EST reply actions  

just throwing it out there…. some of these guys (Bowens, Rogers, perhaps Royal) might have made some interesting collatoral for draft-day trades. ….

by discoinferno083 on Feb 9, 2011 8:29 PM EST reply actions  

I think Coleman and Rogers for sure have some value. You gotta think that we could have gotten at least a mid-round pick from Dallas for Rogers. Playmaking pass rush DTs with 3-4 and 4-3 experience (and Pro Bowl berths in both sets) aren’t exactly a dime a dozen.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 9, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I would hope they explored the possibility of trading these guys before cutting. Doubt there was much out there

by Roger Dorn on Feb 9, 2011 8:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I was thinking the same thing about trade value. None of these guys had any trade value? That says something right there.

Brownsyup

by Brownsyup on Feb 10, 2011 9:04 AM EST up reply actions  

i think with the cba up in the air, there is no trades right now. or if there is, its just player for player, or draft pick for draft pick. you cannot trade a player for a draft pick unless the new cba gets done before the draft

by RyanBr on Feb 10, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions  

The NFL business year begins early March. This has been standard procedure for awhile now. Certain Front office moves are made before the end of curreent year, like player releases. I’m pretty sure that teams are prohibited to talk FA or possilble trades, regardless of draft involvement, until the start of the ‘new’ year. This is why Goodell set March 4th as a deadline for CBA deal. He is hoping to start off the 2011 season, business as usual.

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

i believe there are no trades allowed at all right now … which doesn’t mean they didn’t explore trade value, but i’d imagine it’s pretty hard to ascertain.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Teams can’t trade players now, they can only trade draft picks.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Doubt anyone was willing to pay 5 mill for Rogers.

by BuenosAires_Dawg on Feb 10, 2011 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Never overestimate Al Davis and/or Jerry Jones and/or Dan Snyder.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 10:38 PM EST up reply actions  

and already he has scheduled a visit to the Redskins.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 11, 2011 1:11 AM EST up reply actions  

And they could offer him less than 5 million/year.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 11, 2011 1:43 AM EST up reply actions  

He’d be a perfect fit for any overpaid, unotivated team, I guess.

by BuenosAires_Dawg on Feb 11, 2011 11:49 AM EST up reply actions  

was thinkin

that myself.

"War Memorial Stadium looks as if whatever war it was a memorial to had been fought within its confines."-Brock Yates

by Blo2Death on Feb 9, 2011 10:30 PM EST up reply actions  

But is paying roster bonuses on these guys worth the possibility that you might be able to trade them with all the uncertainty of the CBA hanging in the air? The FO clearly thought not.

"Magic would be getting productivity out of Crowe or Valbuena. I’ll admit we could use a little luck, but that’s not the same thing." - Jay

by woodsmeister on Feb 10, 2011 9:31 AM EST up reply actions  

I can’t see why they care about roster bonuses. It’s not their money, the owner has shown he’ll pay it, and there’s no cap for it to count against.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

2010 was an uncapped season, but I thought that 2011 caps, if any, would be determined by the new CBA.

I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.

by JustBob on Feb 10, 2011 5:50 PM EST up reply actions  

My understanding is that since the bonus would be during this financial year, it would apply to this seasons cap, but since there was no cap, it doesn’t matter.

I’m no cap expert, I could be talking out of my ass here.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 8:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Little disappointed we let Coleman and Rogers go, but I can see why. Everyone else, thank God. But DL is a huge issue now. I mean, we just let go two starters and Robaire is probably retiring. Who’s left? Rubin and Robinson? And Mitchell who is technically a FA right now?

If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.

by SpecialBrownie on Feb 9, 2011 8:31 PM EST reply actions  

I think it’s a huge indication we’re looking to draft defense in the first round.

by emily522 on Feb 9, 2011 8:32 PM EST up reply actions  

D-line seems pretty clear to me at this moment in time.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 9, 2011 8:46 PM EST up reply actions  

So if you were to rate the players on how they did last year they got rid of their
15th best player LB Bowens
18th DE Coleman
23rd LB Barton
42nd RT St. Clair
44th TE Royal
45th DE Rogers ( talking production , not what if healthy and motivated )
Add to that Free Agents to be
6th FB Vickers
9th S Elam
I0th LB Roth
13th K Dawson
17th OL Womack
24th QB Wallace
33th CB Wright
34th RB Bell
41st WR Stuckey
I’d say yeah this team could be blown up ! We could lose 9 of our top 24 players this year.
Would you see DE Brian Shaefering being moved in to defensive tackle ? Isn’t he one of the strongest lineman on the team in pure strength ? And everyone thinks LB Roth will drop down to DE , or will he move to inside linebacker ?
 Does this mean OT Tony Pashos is healthy ? Does this mean a high draft choice for right tackle ?
STILL A BIG HOLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE O LINE
      AND D LINE

by jaybird6798 on Feb 9, 2011 8:48 PM EST reply actions  

We’re not letting vWickers go, he’s one of the best FBs in the league. i don’t think Elam is going anywhere either.

by Dawg Nuts on Feb 9, 2011 8:53 PM EST up reply actions  

how are these players ranked?

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 9:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Incorrectly. I mean, Royal was Mr. Stonehands, but at least he could block. St. Claire on the other hand … I don’t get the ranking on Stuckey either. He didn’t put up #1 WR numbers, but he’s more of a #3 anyways. The short patterns he ran? The OC might have had something to do with that, or the look of the defenses.

I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.

by JustBob on Feb 9, 2011 9:58 PM EST up reply actions  

completely arbitrarily. I don’t understand how Stuckey just BARELY edges out St. Clair and how Rogers, even with the injuries, is worse than Royal.

And even with all of his bad play at the beginning, Wright is much better than Bell.

And bowens had one good game and had another 14 where he was invisible.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 9, 2011 10:03 PM EST up reply actions  

where did you come up with these rankings? haha

by Manoovi on Feb 9, 2011 10:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Hey these guys filled a gap for 2 years or so…maybe helped win a few games…Bowens V Saints.. but ya…blow it up…why not do that every couple years? We are used to it.

"There's a gleam men, there's a gleam!" Marty

by Red-Right-88 on Feb 10, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions  

You had to get that roster younger – and that is Mangini’s fault not Shurmur. All those guys cut were long in the tooth, most were worthless, and none worth fretting over. People forget that we were both bad and old last year. I believe we had the most players over 30 in the NFL. If you are going to be bad – you have to be younger – period.

Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"

by realmccoy on Feb 11, 2011 9:14 AM EST up reply actions  

It’s all well and good to get younger, but you can only draft so many guys a season. We have a lot of holes to fill, and will almost certainly have no depth again this year. Teams get better by making former starters into backups, not by keeping the same awful backups and replacing the starters.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 11, 2011 9:24 AM EST up reply actions  

I honestly believe we are going to be very active in free agency (if Free agency happens with the whole CBA). We just cut 16 million dollars in salary, I don’t think we cut it just to cut it. I think H&H have a plan and specific free agents they are targeting.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 11, 2011 1:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I think H&H have a plan….

A reasonable statement you could apply to an awful lot of conversations we’re having right now. Might be right, might be wrong, who knows.

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 11, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

We probably will be, but it’s just another hole-patching venture until we get years of draft picks in and developed. We are just trading 3-4 hole-patchers for 4-3 hole-patchers.

We might get 1-3 solid guys in free agency but that’s about it. And I would dance with joy if we got 3.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 11, 2011 9:56 PM EST up reply actions  

We need to find solid players in the late rounds of the draft and as undrafted FA; that’s how good teams like the Steelers and Patriots are built. They find the guys that other teams miss. We need our scouting department to find those guys over the next couple years to rebuild our defense.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2011 12:43 AM EST up reply actions  

We have to be very active in free agency in order to fill our roster. And no that’s not a knock against the recent releasing of any players.

by Villeslgr on Feb 12, 2011 9:40 PM EST up reply actions  

I think there may also be a positive here in terms of team morale and energy level. I can’t say what all of these guys who were cut were like in the locker room / to work with on the field, but guys like Hillis, McCoy, Haden, etc. might actually feel the drag from guys who don’t have that same youthful ‘fire’ when they’re in practice, etc. When you listen to the young guys talk (just listen to any interviews with the three guys I mentioned…) I get pumped. Most of the young guys don’t have the jaded / tired / hopeless attitude and they might be better off not being around it. They REALLY BELIEVE the team is going to become a winner, which is very important IMO. Talented young players can translate that belief to actual wins on the field by way of their hunger and their fire. It could be argued that cannot be said for any of the guys that were cut.

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi

by burntorangeandbrown on Feb 11, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions  

The young guys love David Bowens. Or so I’ve heard.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 11, 2011 11:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Probably the only one of the lot I would have kept. Rogers was a factor in just one game last season.

by BuenosAires_Dawg on Feb 11, 2011 11:53 AM EST up reply actions  

coleman may have been worth keeping as DE depth, though i have no idea how much money he was owed.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 11, 2011 12:55 PM EST up reply actions  

3.15 million. Probably a bit much, but he was a much better bargain than Rogers (5.5 million), Royal (3.6 million) or St. Clair (2.9 million), or Eric Barton (3.5 million). Considering how little depth we had, it may have been a decent option. I think if they thought he could fit a 4-3, he might still be here, but considering he would cost over 3 million and might not fit the scheme, it makes sense.

Also, Bowens would be a bargain too if they felt he fit (I think 1.65 million)

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 11, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions  

He’s really not a good fit in the 4-3, but maybe I would have kept him. I think a 3-4 team would have given up a 5th for him if we’d waited.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 11, 2011 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah – I’m not making a sweeping statement about all of the guys who were cut. I was really just making a general commentary.
I’d guess at least one or more of the players cut fit the ‘jaded / tired drag’ on some of the younger players description.

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi

by burntorangeandbrown on Feb 11, 2011 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Mangini gutted the team and plugged in short-term, cheap, hard working players to turn the culture of our organization around.

They were always going to be replaced by younger, better guys, they were just gap-pluggers: it wasn’t Mangini’s fault it was his plan.

Now guys like Joe Haden know how to work and how to be a “good pro” and when stars emerge from our younger players that hard working attitude will only grow within the organization.

Change doesn’t happen overnight.

Oh yeah, and those worthless players contributed to a pretty solid defense last year.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 11, 2011 9:54 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I see one player on this list that may have been worth keeping.

 For those overreacting – I was at 6 of 8 home games last year.

Shaun Rogers in particular would not be worth one tenth of his pay next season. His roster bonus should be the equivalent of his salary. He was on the field for maybe one third of the total defensive snaps and was totally ineffective for half of those. I can’t tell you how any times I was yelling at him coming off the field at his usual snails “I could care less” pace – sure the opposing Offense was going to catch us with 12 men on the field.

If you remember – Bowens was sure that even though he was a “Mangini Guy” he was going to get cut at the beginning of last season.

Barton has a neck injury and may retire.

St. Clair sucks.

Robert Royal can block, but even without the 3 broken fingers that were an excuse in 09, still couldn’t catch in 2010.

Coleman probably had some trade value and should have been held on to for at least that.

These moves were a far cry from blowing up anything.

What does that MEAN - TO PLAY US OUT?!!?!?

by DaveDawg09 on Feb 9, 2011 8:57 PM EST reply actions  

Yes, I’ve never heard so much fretting about losing so few valuable players. I don’t know if it’s the typical fan overvaluing their own players or it’s people who are still mad Mangini was fired and they’re taking it out on every move the team makes now, but losing these players certainly isn’t blowing up the team. I think any NFL analyst, or any well-informed fan, would laugh at the idea that cutting these players mean the team was getting blown up.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I think any NFL analyst, or any well-informed fan, would laugh at the idea that cutting these players mean the team was getting blown up.

Or maybe they just have a different interpretation of what they’re seeing, perhaps viewing it as the beginning of the end and not the last act.

The perfect is the enemy of the good --- Voltaire

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 11, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

to be clear, my argument was never that this group of cuts represented the “blow up” … i contend that this sucker was blown up the minute we hired a 4-3 defensive guy (which was immediately preceded by hiring a brand-new offensive mind in the HC).

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 11, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions  

That might not have been your argument but other people seemed to be taking that position (based on the comments above).

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2011 11:43 PM EST up reply actions  

The only guy on that list I would argue would be worth keeping at the price we would have to pay would be Bowens if he can still play 4-3 DE which is questionable. The rest were massively overpayed and/or did not fit our scheme or were bad.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 12, 2011 1:17 AM EST up reply actions  

No one is complaining about losing so few valuable players. It’s legitimate curiosity about what are plans are to add both talent and depth to the roster. No one is denying those players weren’t world beaters.

And again your belittling of everyone who posts something critical is just as tired as the sarcastic negative posts.

by Villeslgr on Feb 12, 2011 9:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m not sayin we lost all these players , I’m sayin we could ! Yeah we could have used a 7th round pick we would have got for Coleman to have another WR

by jaybird6798 on Feb 9, 2011 9:11 PM EST reply actions  

Off Topic Cleveland Browns Twitter Post of the Day:

Do you think that the guy that invented the Dildo heard a voice say “If you build it they will come!”??
About 7 hours ago by DeAngelo Smith Cleveland Browns – Safety

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 9, 2011 9:14 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert

by Simmsinns on Feb 9, 2011 9:44 PM EST up reply actions  

LMAO!

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

How come Rogers stats dipped so hard this year?

Is it how he was used? Nagging injuries? It seems like you still think he has a good amount left in the tank. I saw the comment earlier he was only playing 25 snaps a game so just wondering what was going on.

Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.

by Kevin Ewoldt on Feb 9, 2011 9:47 PM EST reply actions  

He was injured, but don’t let that get in the way of people telling you how lazy he was.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 9:51 PM EST up reply actions  

He mostly suffered from a severe case of “Acute Practicitis.” I was continually shocked that the coaching staff put up with a guy that never had an x-ray, an MRI or any sort of leaked, publicized injury and almost never participated in a full practice – yet still dressed for every game. Pathetic, lazy, waste of talent. The same reasons that got him excused from Detroit were rearing their ugly heads here. Good riddance.

What does that MEAN - TO PLAY US OUT?!!?!?

by DaveDawg09 on Feb 9, 2011 10:06 PM EST up reply actions  

He broke his leg at the end of last season, did he not? I also seem to recall the coaches mentioning that he was injured multiple times. Just because they didn’t let the specifics get out doesn’t mean they were lying. Shaun Rogers was never anything but a team player during Mangini’s time here.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 11:30 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

He broke his leg at the end of last season, did he not?

i believe “shattered” is the more apt term.

Just because they didn’t let the specifics get out doesn’t mean they were lying

the mangini crew NEVER let anything out. ever. especially on injuries.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Good liars keep it to a minimum. Bad liars go into great detail.

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Nose tackles rarely put up elite stats. Rubin just moved into the realm of DTs that put up big #s but most don’t. Statistically, Rogers was just as good this year as Casey Hampton who started 14 games.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 9, 2011 10:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Rogers had a huge year stats wise in 2008 and went to the Pro-Bowl

Browns were in a 3-4 this year….Rob Ryan came in 2009, so not sure what happened. I do recall his beef with Mangina.

Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.

by Kevin Ewoldt on Feb 9, 2011 10:31 PM EST up reply actions  

first of all, real mature on the mangina thing.

and his beef went away very quickly, mangini played the guy when he was healthy. Its hard to put up consistent pro bowl stats after the age of 30…especially when you are playing a position like NT where consistent statistical production like he had is very rare.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 9, 2011 10:33 PM EST up reply actions  

fair enough

Just seemed like a night and day performance from 2008-09…even without the stats. Breaking a leg at that age with that weight probably was the difference. Skins NT Ma’ake Kemoeatu got pushed back 5 yards on every play from a center 50 lbs lighter. Kemo was off an achilles injury tho…way worse than broken leg.

Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.

by Kevin Ewoldt on Feb 9, 2011 10:40 PM EST up reply actions  

yes. the injury hurt, but he was still an effective player, though no longer a pro bowler. He was nowhere near worth 5.5 million and its likely they didn’t find any takers on his contract.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 9, 2011 10:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I think he barely made it off the PUP list, he was out of shape, and his injuries were nagging. He probably was complacent amidst all that as well.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:32 AM EST up reply actions  

The worst part is now I have to find something to replace the “Creation of Bowens” wallpaper on my computer and iPad.

I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.

by JustBob on Feb 9, 2011 10:02 PM EST reply actions  

if we draft Da'quan Bowers

you can just change the ‘n’ to an ‘r’

by Manoovi on Feb 9, 2011 10:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Genius!

Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!

by LondonBrown on Feb 9, 2011 10:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Won’t be able to assess the impact of these moves until their replacements are worked in through draft or FA. But I can’t say I miss Royal or St Clair much already. Overall, I like the decisions. It tells me the front office is leaning forward to improve the overall talent and longevity of the team. I doubt they would release any of these players if they didn’t believe they have a reastic chance to upgrade at each position.

Glad that Bowens, Barton and Coleman were able to contribute to the defense as much as they did while in Cleveland. They seemed like real blue-plate special guys who earned their keep, set a good example for the younger players and helped develop more unit cohesion during their tenure.

Lately, the athletic potential of Rogers seemed to over shadow the reality of Rogers due to his reduced playing time and injuries. While he had some great games and memorable individual — even game changing — plays over the last couple years, I’m reminded of the criticisms that followed him when he arrived from Detroit. He will not be remembered as an overachiever in either city.

Hope we don’t have to face a healthy Rogers wherever he ends up next season cause he’ll likely have a huge day against us.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is. -- Yogi Berra

by JustPlainBrowns on Feb 9, 2011 10:32 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Won’t be able to assess the impact of these moves until their replacements are worked in through draft or FA.

unfortunately, this is true, and there’s not much we can do about it.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 11:32 PM EST up reply actions  

what is available FA wise for the D line? Seems Cle needs at least one or two guys before the draft?

"War Memorial Stadium looks as if whatever war it was a memorial to had been fought within its confines."-Brock Yates

by Blo2Death on Feb 9, 2011 10:35 PM EST reply actions  

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2011/fa/dl.html

There’s a list of the guys set to be free agents… I’m not sure this would include people who will hit free agency due to being released, but it gives a general idea.

by shep615 on Feb 9, 2011 11:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Great minds.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Feb 9, 2011 11:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Lots of guys I would gamble on there, zero of them are on our roster.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Yet.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:34 AM EST up reply actions  

The team will definitely add linebackers and defensive linemen through free agency this year. I think the first pick will be a defensive lineman. Looking at our competition, especially the division AND the superbowl teams this year, I think this is a good long-term strategy.

Brownsyup

by Brownsyup on Feb 10, 2011 9:10 AM EST up reply actions  

They will almost have to sign guys in order to fill out the roster.

I think BPA/BVA is a much better strategy than drafting solely defensive linemen early. Many of those teams took guys who fell into their laps. pittsburgh has had Smith (4th round) and Keisel (7th round) as long-term starters. GB found Jenkins in undrafted FA and Pickett in free agency as well. Both teams spent first round picks in other areas; Center, QB, OT, CB, ILB, OLB…

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 10:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Somewhat disappointed that we lose Rogers for nothing. I was expecting him to have a huge bounce back season next year.

I am guessing that HH&S know something we don’t. Maybe he is much more injured than we ever knew.

by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 9, 2011 10:40 PM EST reply actions  

If you have access to game tape from last year take a look at Rogers performance when on the field. He was nowhere near the disruptive force he had been in the past. Previously you could expect him to beat the O lineman in front of him and get into the backfield. Not last season. More often than not he was stood up, had no speed or leg drive and did little more than clog a gap. I often wondered if Rubin was as good as we thought, or whether he was just doing what we expected out of an average Rogers.

What does that MEAN - TO PLAY US OUT?!!?!?

by DaveDawg09 on Feb 9, 2011 10:51 PM EST up reply actions  

The thing is Rogers battled injuries all season. When healthy, he could still be a disruptive force. I think Bernie might be on to something, maybe Rogers’ injuries are worse than we knew.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 9, 2011 11:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Mike Mayock disagrees.

I can’t get the video to work on my current connection, but I’m pretty sure this is the video where Mayock breaks down Rogers performance:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d81ba4fe7/Playbook-How-Browns-D-dominated-champs

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 10, 2011 6:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Was this Saints game (can’t view video at work) because that was easily Rogers’ best game of the season.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Yep.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Feb 10, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions  

They know he makes 5.5 million and is injured a lot.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Coleman may have gotten us something – maybe. Cant justify keeping Rogers for 6 million dollars though when he only had 17 tackles last year – and was lazy. These moves look solid – I think the FO is committed to putting together a team that is young, and plays.

Im just happy I dont have to watch St. Clair get beat all game every game this year.

I live for Christ the KING.

by jlsclarity on Feb 9, 2011 10:44 PM EST reply actions  

I heard the market for overpaid, aging, injured linemen is booming this year.

Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"

by realmccoy on Feb 11, 2011 9:15 AM EST up reply actions  

I was trying to see how much Royal made last year. At first I assumed his salary was about that of his salary that the sidebar on the left said he would have for 2011 (around 2 million). However, his salary this year was 3.6 million. Thats ridiculous. that means he got paid 720k for each catch he made.

There are really only 1-2 guys who I thought we had any chance at getting value for; coleman and Rogers. the other players also have marginal impact at best to the team going forward. The fact that we paid Royal and St. Clair over 6 million last year is a joke and we should have cut them. Combined, they aren’t worth 1/10th of their combined salaries for 2011 (over 5 million). Each one is worth league minimum at best.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 9, 2011 10:53 PM EST reply actions  

How much per drop?

"Magic would be getting productivity out of Crowe or Valbuena. I’ll admit we could use a little luck, but that’s not the same thing." - Jay

by woodsmeister on Feb 10, 2011 9:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Some as catches. He had the same number of drops as catches this year. Sad but true.

Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"

by realmccoy on Feb 11, 2011 9:16 AM EST up reply actions  

that is an amazingly awful stat

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 11, 2011 12:56 PM EST up reply actions  

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2011/fa/dl.html

As far as I’m aware, that’s an accurate list of potential free agents on the defensive line. If it’s wrong or outdated, and anyone has a better list, by all means.

Seems a risky play with the CBA to create so many holes, but I imagine that deal gets done. They could also intend to add more picks in the draft, but they’d have to get creative.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Feb 9, 2011 11:10 PM EST reply actions  

So… We know who we DON’T have anymore on the d-line, who DO we still have on the d-line?

If it has to be done, this seems like the best time to do it. With as deep as people are saying the draft is at DT and DE, we’ll be able to add some good young talent.

As far as free agency goes, what about Cullen Jenkins from GB? I don’t really know anything about him… Just heaqrd on the radio that he’s a backup at GB that has the talent to start so he’s probably gonna look to go somewhere else and start. Think Cleveland has a shot? Think we should go after him?

by shep615 on Feb 9, 2011 11:38 PM EST reply actions  

he has played in GB for a while so has experience in a 3-4 and 4-3. He had some solid seasons in a 4-3 when he got Playing time. His problem has been health, but when healthy has been a very good penetrating rusher. Very athletic for his size and can collapse the pocket. He seems like the perfect fit as 1 tech next to Tuba.

Personally, I would much rather have Brandon mebane. He is a bit underrated and is younger. Plus, he was drafted by Holmgren so this is a move that seems really likely.

Him and Sean Locklear are 2 guys that I feel Holmgren will try to target. both are under 30, both played in Seattle with him, and both are Free agents. Plus, they will fill needs at DT and RT.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 9, 2011 11:51 PM EST up reply actions  

As disappointed as I am that Rogers is gone, I am that happy and more that Royal, Barton and St. Clair are gone.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Feb 10, 2011 1:35 AM EST reply actions  

Good Lord, I just read that the Browns had the 3rd oldest roster in the NFL last year.

by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2011 1:59 AM EST reply actions  

and this move helps. this move is cutting 6 players, most of whom were old and overpayed. combined, the guys we just cut had an average cap hit next year of 2.75 million, an average age of 32, and an average impact of “will not be missed”. Coleman is the only guy who I would seriously miss. Even Coleman, who I think was the most effective of the group last year, I think was overpayed at 3.15 million in 2010.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 10, 2011 4:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Right. That’s why moves like this were necessary and were going to happen even if Mangini had kept his job.

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I think mangini keeping his job only saves Coleman and possibly Bowens. Even coleman may be questionable considering how much he is being paid. Unless we could get trade value, i think rogers was out the door.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by bross09 on Feb 12, 2011 1:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Well nothing to say here

by Zoom88 on Feb 10, 2011 10:19 AM EST reply actions  

look at the bright side…..we now have a cap # of around $83 million for 2011. We’ll finally be able to pay off the salaries of the Crennel/Mangini era………I’m feeling a Carolina Panthers season coming on….

by sleepy042 on Feb 10, 2011 11:01 AM EST reply actions  

Our owner isn’t cheap. Money is not an issue.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m not surprised by any of the moves except for one or two things. It seems to me that a few of these guys, Rogers being the main one, may have had some trade value left in them. I know the Browns avoid paying the roster bonus with him by releasing him and maybe they took the time to shop him around but got no interest? Overall I pretty much expected this. Most of these guys were either insignificant, going gray, or injured most the year.

I’m more intrigued by what we have in mind to do with this new found salary cap room. Very excited for the off season transactions now.

"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden

by Kimble_79 on Feb 10, 2011 11:28 AM EST reply actions  

I think it’s important to remember Holmgren has had a lot of success in the past with free agents on the defensive line. His Packers D Line was completely comprised of free agents. The Seahawks had 3 free agents out of the 4 starting d linemen.

by Michael Lee on Feb 10, 2011 12:23 PM EST reply actions  

unfortunately we have to also keep in mind the liklihood of a lockout which means no FA. i fully expect CLE to draft lower than 6th in 2011

by sleepy042 on Feb 10, 2011 12:36 PM EST reply actions  

Well if there’s a lockout there’s no football period

by Michael Lee on Feb 10, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Shaun Rogers is the only player worth arguing over. He’s also the only one that wasn’t brought in by Mangini. He probably has a couple of good seasons left, but he’s just not worth the current contract.

Go Large! It's only $0.59 more.

by GhostRider94 on Feb 10, 2011 1:11 PM EST reply actions  

He was brought in by Savage who was worse

by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2011 11:35 PM EST up reply actions  

We trimmed the fat but now we need about 12 key players. I can’t see us getting that much talent through the draft and free agency. How many walk ons are we going to allow on this team? Open tryouts in Cleveland? Speaking of which, I was reading the football movie post and I didn’t see a lot about the movie “Invincible.” I have to put that one in the top five.

The current incarnation of the Browns are the Beatles without John Lennon.

by 489favegame stat on Feb 10, 2011 4:51 PM EST reply actions  

I want to know what happens if there is no new CBA – and the owners decide not to lock out the players. It’s my understanding that if that were the case, there would be no free agency and all FA’s would return to their current team at a yet to be determined salary increase.

So, we just cut a bunch of players on defense that may not be able to be replaced in free agency. That would certainly change the ’ol draft strategy.

What does that MEAN - TO PLAY US OUT?!!?!?

by DaveDawg09 on Feb 10, 2011 9:16 PM EST reply actions  

WTF?! No more Big Baby hogging up the stantionary bikes?

I’ve had a girl on my mind for a couple weeks now. I’m slippin’. News is already 2 days old.

It’s not a lie if you believe it.

by Brownie's Year on Feb 11, 2011 1:49 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.

Community Guidelines
Send us a Scoop

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Cleveland_browns_super_bowl_banner_11217big_small
A new USFL/NFL D League?
000_0505_small
Kardiac Assessment % / @# / !@
Small
Top 5 Bubble Players
Small
All-time NFL mock draft on MtD
Buddhathomas_small
Cleveland Browns 2012 Prediction - A Sailor's Perspective
000_0505_small
Kardiac Assessment % / !^ / !@
Cribbs_small
2012 Rookie Predictions
Nfl_u_okoye_200_small
A look of the 2012 Browns O-line
000_0505_small
Kardiac Assessment % / ( / !@
00000021_small
browns Q for 12 who are they

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Browns Links

Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal

Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board

free hit counter javascript


Executive Editor

Dbn_small Chris Pokorny

Minions

Funny-good-times-11_small Bernie19Kosar

Rufiohookgrin01_small rufio

Hadenward-new2_small Jon @ DBN

Moderators

N3tdgy_medium_small Brownie's Year

Polar_cap_of_mars_planet_small notthatnoise