Cleveland Browns (2013 Season)

[exhawg]

Every mock draft I've seen (save one dude smoking silly weed who has us taking the WR from Tennessee at 6) has either Milliner, Jones, Moore from A&M, or Mingo (which I don't think will happen). So it appears everyone thinks defense, which is good. Whatever they don't draft high, they should try and sign somebody good. So, a corner or a rusher. Other than that, I don't see a reason to break the bank with any FAs.

I just think they have 2 positions of great need: OLB and CB

You are only going to be able to fill one of those in the draft so I think they need to find a good FA at one of those spots. They should also be able to find a FA guard that is a good value.

Milliner might be the safer pick since they are a better than average CB and a decent FS away from having one of the top DB groups in the league. OL is probably the only other group that could be 2 players away from being the best in the league. That's why trading down and taking Warmack intrigues me. A strong running game would make the defense look better because it would keep them off the field and well rested.

 

[LitlBuck]

first, cleveland doesn't have a real $40+ million to spend in cap. a portion of that is cap rollover, which is phantom money. as of now, they have about $84-$85 million tied up in salaries for next year. They have around $6 million in dead money which is on the books for next year. That gives them around $30 million in real money for next season. They aren't going to spend $25 million in free agency, nor should they. why there is this notion of building through the draft and being competitive quickly being mutually exclusive, I don't know. Quite frankly, the coaching staff alone should enhance this team's win total without any real improvements to the roster.

So you are saying that one of our coaches are going to play free safety and 2 of the other coaches are going to play OLB and RDE . I am basing my scenario on the fact that they draft Milliner to play CB.

Regarding the salary cap. So I am incorrect in saying that the Browns do not have to get rid of close to $50 mil by the year 2016 or it will be distributed amongst the players that they have had on their rosters during the next 4 years. I understand that they have to set aside money for the rookie pool which would be around $5 million each year but I also understand that all player contracts are not guaranteed for 3-4 years. They are only uniquely guaranteed for a year or two so players will be leaving by 2016 which frees up money after every season.

Tell me where I am wrong because it is my understanding that according to the CBA if the money is not spent by 2016 it goes to the players you cannot bank it.

 

[tsteele316]

So you are saying that one of our coaches are going to play free safety and 2 of the other coaches are going to play OLB and RDE . I am basing my scenario on the fact that they draft Milliner to play CB.

Regarding the salary cap. So I am incorrect in saying that the Browns do not have to get rid of close to $50 mil by the year 2016 or it will be distributed amongst the players that they have had on their rosters during the next 4 years. I understand that they have to set aside money for the rookie pool which would be around $5 million each year but I also understand that all player contracts are not guaranteed for 3-4 years. They are only uniquely guaranteed for a year or two so players will be leaving by 2016 which frees up money after every season.

Tell me where I am wrong because it is my understanding that according to the CBA if the money is not spent by 2016 it goes to the players you cannot bank it.

over a 4 year block, starting in 2013, so 2013-2016, teams have to spend 89% of the cumulative cap for those years. so, say the cap is $121 million this year, $130 million, $135 million, $140 million, the browns would have to spend in total $468 million. That averages out to $117 million a year. The browns are already at $85 million this year, without accounting for draft picks, and without spending a nickle to extend any core players. If you want to look at the 89% on a year by year basis, they would have to spend around $107 million this year. They have about $84 million or so in salary, and $6 million in dead money, which counts. They will have about $4 million in draft picks. They don't have to spend much at all in free agency to hit the 89% mark for 2013 alone.

When they start signing guys like haden, ward, taylor et all to extensions, it will be at the market rate, which will be increasing in relation to cap escalation. the browns are hardly going to have to go crazy in free agency to meet the cap minimum thresholds.

 

[broken24]

over a 4 year block, starting in 2013, so 2013-2016, teams have to spend 89% of the cumulative cap for those years. so, say the cap is $121 million this year, $130 million, $135 million, $140 million, the browns would have to spend in total $468 million. That averages out to $117 million a year. The browns are already at $85 million this year, without accounting for draft picks, and without spending a nickle to extend any core players. If you want to look at the 89% on a year by year basis, they would have to spend around $107 million this year. They have about $84 million or so in salary, and $6 million in dead money, which counts. They will have about $4 million in draft picks. They don't have to spend much at all in free agency to hit the 89% mark for 2013 alone.

When they start signing guys like haden, ward, taylor et all to extensions, it will be at the market rate, which will be increasing in relation to cap escalation. the browns are hardly going to have to go crazy in free agency to meet the cap minimum thresholds.

Also the salary cap last year increased by less than a million from the previous year and is projected to increase this year by about a million. If the cap remains relatively flat and the browns resign their young core players, then they can reach the min. cap without going crazy in FA market.

Here is a link to a further explanation of the min. cap and here is a link to the actual CBA (both of which I had posted in the 2012 thread...I think this is going to be an annual question with the browns)

 

[exhawg]

This seems to be a pretty slow day so let's see how this goes. I'm pretty sure this is all blowing smoke, but if you were the Browns GM what would someone have to give you to trade Weeden?

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/2/22/4017616/brandon-weeden-colt-mccoy-trade-cleveland-browns

For me it would need to be something in the top 10 of the second round and a lower pick or better. I don't really see that there are any QB's in the draft, FA, or trade that would be a better fit for the new offense that Weeden.

No way Colt gets traded now. He isn't a good fit so I'm guessing he'll get cut. Same with SF and Smith. No one is going to trade for a QB that makes that much money on a team that doesn't want to pay him.

 

[tsteele316]

This seems to be a pretty slow day so let's see how this goes. I'm pretty sure this is all blowing smoke, but if you were the Browns GM what would someone have to give you to trade Weeden?

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/2/22/4017616/brandon-weeden-colt-mccoy-trade-cleveland-browns

For me it would need to be something in the top 10 of the second round and a lower pick or better. I don't really see that there are any QB's in the draft, FA, or trade that would be a better fit for the new offense that Weeden.

No way Colt gets traded now. He isn't a good fit so I'm guessing he'll get cut. Same with SF and Smith. No one is going to trade for a QB that makes that much money on a team that doesn't want to pay him.

to be fair, this is an interpretation by mary kay cabot, and given the quote that she used to extrapolate that, calling it a stretch would be kind. but what do you expect from someone dumb as a bag of hammers.

 

[Bucklion]

to be fair, this is an interpretation by mary kay cabot, and given the quote that she used to extrapolate that, calling it a stretch would be kind. but what do you expect from someone dumb as a bag of hammers.

Sure does look good in those leopard prints, though.

 

[jlb1705]

I'd trade Brandon Weeden for a bag of hammers.

 

[NFBuck]

I'd trade Brandon Weeden for a bag of hammers.

I still lol when I think they wasted a first round pick on a 29 year old quarterback. Only the clowns.

 

[buckiprof]

For me it would need to be something in the top 10 of the second round and a lower pick or better. I don't really see that there are any QB's in the draft, FA, or trade that would be a better fit for the new offense that Weeden.

With the new offense, besides being more vertical Weeden will also be in the shotgun much more than with Shurmur's "offense". Weeden should be more comfortable in the shotgun and more comfortable with the vertical game. QB's usually progress quite a bit from year 1 to year 2 and with the aforementioned offensive changes, maybe even more so for Weeden. The one problem, and it is a big problem, is that Weeden isn't one of the "guys" the new management team brought in.

Assuming that everyone's goal is to win, it seems silly that the new management would be down on Weeden because he isn't one of their guys. But we all know that these ego-driven types need to have their guy. What if Weeden is here next year, starting, and the Browns go 8-8 or 9-7 and sniff the playoffs (or hell, even make the playoffs)?!? Weeden will get much credit and that means that Heckert receives much credit....not something that Banner or Lombardi want to see.

I have been really pessimistic since Jimmy and Joe came to town and bringing in Lombardi only helped solidify my pessimism. An attempt to break my pessimism would be for this brain trust to sign an OLB via FA (I would like Kruger for this as it would also weaken a division rival), use pick #6 on a CB, use 3rd and 4th round picks on FS and OLB, then grab an OG in round 5. I would still like to see a veteran WR signed via FA to provide leadership for our young WR corp but that is too obvious I fear.

 

[Buckeneye]

Trading Weeden would take minimum a lower 1st round pick. There isn't a QB in the draft worth much of a damn - and like it or not, Weeds is Cleveland's best option right now.

 

[exhawg]

Assuming that everyone's goal is to win, it seems silly that the new management would be down on Weeden because he isn't one of their guys. But we all know that these ego-driven types need to have their guy. What if Weeden is here next year, starting, and the Browns go 8-8 or 9-7 and sniff the playoffs (or hell, even make the playoffs)?!? Weeden will get much credit and that means that Heckert receives much credit....not something that Banner or Lombardi want to see.

I hope that doesn't really play a factor in what to do with Weeden. They could always say it was the new coaching staff that helped Weeden improve enough to lead the Browns to the 9-7 record. I doubt he would do that with Shurmur as the coach. It isn't like Heckert would get the credit for drafting Richardson if he leads the league in rushing next year. It would be Norv Turner and Chud for installing an offense that allows Richardson to do it.

I just hope Lombardi and Banner aren't stupid enough to screw with what the Browns have been building.

 

[LitlBuck]

With the new offense, besides being more vertical Weeden will also be in the shotgun much more than with Shurmur's "offense". Weeden should be more comfortable in the shotgun and more comfortable with the vertical game. QB's usually progress quite a bit from year 1 to year 2 and with the aforementioned offensive changes, maybe even more so for Weeden. The one problem, and it is a big problem, is that Weeden isn't one of the "guys" the new management team brought in.

I read an article a few weeks ago that said Weeden was only in the shotgun less than 50% of the time last season while most other QB's were in the shotgun close to 65% of the time. That is a huge difference especially for a guy who spent the majority of his college career throwing from the shotgun.

I say that they should keep him at least for another season and see what he does under Turner. I would not mind them bringing in a vet to be his mentor but at times last year he didn't seem to want to listen to anybody when he came to the sidelines but I still think one more year under Turner would be a good indicator.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Scott Pioli on NFL Network has us taking Jarvis Jones at #6....No..No...No! That injury history scares me off with him....He also has Milliner #2 and Warmack #4...Would want either one of those two over Jones....Thoughts?

 

[ysubuck]

I want nothing to do with Jarvis Jones strictly because of the injury risk. Given that this is the Cleveland Browns we are talking about he would get injured on the first play of training camp and never play a down.

That said, if he gets drafted by another team I fully expect him to have a HOF career.

Say what you want about the victim mentality of Browns fans, but you can't say we haven't earned it.