If you follow the Braylon Edwards timeline since he came to Cleveland closely, it'll appear as an up-and-down roller coaster. The ride abruptly ended mid-stream this morning though, when the Browns traded the former first-round receiver to the New York Jets. After not being dealt in the offseason to the other New York team, the New York Giants, it seemed to be certain that Edwards would remain with the club for the entire 2009 campaign.
It's disappointing to see Edwards' abilities leave this team, but at 0-4 and with Edwards' future with the Browns already uncertain, the trade is understandable. With the non-football antics he has pulled throughout his career, including this past Monday, I don't think many Browns fans will be shedding any tears either.
What was included in the deal? Let's take a look at the specifics:
| BROWNS TRADE | JETS TRADE | |
| WR Braylon Edwards | for | WR Chansi Stuckey ST Jason Trusnik 3rd round pick in 2010* 5th round pick in 2010* |
According to ESPN, the league is still determining whether or not to punish Edwards for violating the league's conduct policy after he was accused of assaulting a friend of LeBron James. That mess doesn't belong with the Browns anymore though; apparently the Jets will have to worry about that now.
"It's the right thing for us and for Braylon," stated Browns head coach Eric Mangini on Wednesday. "This is a fresh start for Braylon. It's a great opportunity for him and I expressed to him that I hope he takes advantage of it."
Stuckey was the Jets' No. 2 receiver this year. A former seventh-round draft pick in 2007, Stuckey had 11 catches for 120 yards and a touchdown this season. He is no where near the threat that Edwards was, but he's one of those up-and-coming receivers who could really catch on. He will probably be the Browns' No. 2 receiver, although if there are issues getting used to the system, Mike Furrey could move up temporarily instead. This quickly secures Mohamed Massaquoi's spot as the team's new No. 1 receiver though.
With respect to Trusnik, a linebacker, the team has added another "special teams beast", similar to LB Blake Costanzo. Trusnik was the NFL's Week 3 Special Teams Player of the Week for forcing and recovering a fumble on a kickoff.
UPDATE: Several reports are indicating that the draft picks might include a third- and fifth-rounder.
We'll have updates when we find out what draft picks the Browns received, and who the Browns released to make way for Trusnik.
0 recs | 575 comments
Not terrible considering
If BE is suspended, not a bad deal at all. In the offseason, the Giants were offering a 3, 5 round picks and Hixon, so if they got the same picks and got a couple of players on top including a decent slot receiver, when your trade bait is facing a suspension…who could complain?
Mangini has been tagged for his strict discipline, but in this case he did the right thing and likely improved the team at the same time cutting out a cancer in the locker room. If you listen to Mortensen and Schafer on ESPN, they actually seem to be complimentary in regards to the move, and they have not been giving the Browns any leeway with the rebuilding that has begun. Hopefully a step in the right direction.
blockersave93 - October 7, 2009
No way. Edwards is a d-bag, but a very talented d-bag. We traded him when his value was at its lowest.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
When was his value going to be any higher? He’s gone after this year, and they got a similar deal to what the Giants offered in the offseason.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Why is he gone after this year? It is called a franchise tag. The Browns decide when he leaves. No one else. This isn’t baseball.
If you think that Braylon’s value can get any lower, I would love to know how. He has off-field issues and has done nothing on the field this season.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
But they have to pay him a certain amount to franchise him. What if they decide he isn’t worth that price? Then he’s gone.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
The 2009 franchise tag for WRs is $9.88 million, and will more than likely be $10M+ for next year.
Do you honestly think they’d pay him $10M next year?
rolub - October 7, 2009
His salary this season is 6 million. We pay Corey Williams almost 9 million.
Yeah I think we could find room for a WR’s salary.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
We shouldn’t pay Corey Williams 9 million, though.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
(which is why I think Williams will be shown the door this offseason)
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
I am not defending Williams by any means, but to say money is the reason we shouldn’t have kept Braylon is wrong IMO.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
One bad salary doesn’t justify another bad salary. Of course money is a reason — if a player isn’t worth $10 million a year then he shouldn’t get paid that because it takes away money (and salary cap space) for other resources.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Agree. The idea is to save money for players we want to add in free agency or sign to long-term extensions that want to be part of the team.
I do not want to use a ton of money to force a player that doesn’t want to be here, to stay with the team for one additional year.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Exactly.
Also! The Williams salary was signed under Savage’s watch, not Mangini/Kokinis. And they’ve made it abundantly clear that they don’t care much for anyone else’s players, big contract or not.
rolub - October 7, 2009
I am not saying that.
What I am saying is that the Browns, like every other team in the NFL, employs a salary cap expert. 10 million dollars is not a crazy number for a WR. It is high, but not even close to crazy.
The Browns are one of the best teams in the NFL at creating cap space. 10 million is a high number, but if it is the MAIN reason for trading Braylon Edwards, then this was a HORRIBLE trade. Your also forgetting that we are paying Edwards 6 million this season. He goes up to 7.5 million next season. So you would trade a player that has shown the ability to be amongst the leagues best because he will cost an extra 2.5 million?
The Bucs just paid Mike Nugent 2 million dollars to go away.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Huh
He’s not signed next season.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Your right it was my fault, I had my numbers crossed up.
What I was referring to was if Braylon became a restricted FA (due to no cap), he would then be tagged with highest level possible (meaning the Browns would get a 1st and 3rd rounder if he was signed by someone else.). He would then get 110% of his salary this season. It would actually be in the neighborhood of 6.75 million.
My bad. I should have looked closer.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
oh
It’s cool. I thought I had missed something and was thinking all day that his contract was up. Had me a little worried.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
I was just typing faster than I could think.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Money is only one reason. An important reason, for sure, but only one of many.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
What are the other ones?
Because he is a bad guy in the locker room? Suspend him. worked for Brandon Marshall.
Because he wants a trade? Ignore him. Worked for OchoCinco.
If it was because he wanted to be traded, then this FO just opened a can of worms.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Mangini has said Braylon did not request a trade.
The reason was very simple and obvious – he wasn’t fitting into this team. There were a number of factors that contribute to that: his ego, his lack of discipline, his lack of production, and his general disdain for both Cleveland and losing.
danvail - October 7, 2009
You forgot to mention: Because he drops passes like birds drop … what they drop. You say fix it with coaching? Hasn’t worked so far.
JustBob - October 7, 2009
For now. Does anyone think Marshall has magically stopped being a problem? Just give it time.
drjeo - October 7, 2009
I think that Marshall has figured out that the only way he is going to get a new contract is if he plays it straight and busts his ass.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
The cost for franchising a wide receiver this year was just shy of ten million dollars. Edwards is certainly not worth that. He was a malcontent with the possibility of jail time and a suspension hanging over his head. The Browns got plenty from the Jets for him.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Jail time? Really? This isn’t a gun charge. It is a first time offender who hasn’t even had charges filed yet.
This from a team that still has Donte Stallworth on the payroll. Let’s not be crazy here.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
He punched someone in the face. Jail time is warranted.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
No freaking way. A dude got punched outside a bar at 2:30 in the morning.
Happens ever single night.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Tend to agree, this is a minor misdemeanor, and any punishment from the law is likely to pale in comparison to one levied by the NFL (as even a one game suspension will cost him a $375K game check).
danvail - October 7, 2009
Brad D - October 8, 2009
Depending on the exchange between the two people, I’d have to agree with you here. LeBron’s friend described “sticking up for himself” and the argument became heated. I honestly imagine he started running his mouth about Braylon can’t catch and what not. Braylon, while stupid for starting the exchange, wasn’t going to allow this 130 pound chump talk shit about him. At this point a professional athlete should be smarter than 95% of men and know not to hit the guy, because it won’t be worth the mess it’ll cause later. Braylon did it anyway.
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
I, for one, am hoping the little guy learned his lesson.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
rec
i only disagree with this trade because as if their was any less talent on this team hopefully MoMass will turn out to be what we think he can.
What happened with Jennings only getting one touch in the Cinci game. Sweep left for 8 yds
I want to see more of him. He runs like a beast.
Cavs4 life - October 7, 2009
Draft Picks according to ESPN
Conditional 3rd Rounder which can become a 2nd Rounder if Edwards lights it up with a high number of catches this year + a 5th rounder.
It’s a great deal considering Edwards was gone after this year.
gentryholdem - October 7, 2009
Schefter said that the number is very high and Edwards has a very small chance of making that a 2nd.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
that sucks. I wonder if they were willing to give up gholston
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
Ummm…no thank you. Gholston isn’t worth the contract he signed.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Do the Jets really have enough picks for 2010 to give them away for the remainder of Edwards contract? I have to think they are planning on franchising him.
JustBob - October 7, 2009
A 3rd and a 5th isn’t a big deal.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
A third and Leigh Bodden got us Sean Rogers.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Yep and how did that work out for Detroit?
Bodden is now in New England and the pick was Andre Fluellen. Like I said, 3rd and 5th round draft choices aren’t big deals. Especially when we are talking about getting a Pro Bowler in return.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
“Pro Bowler”
heh
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Newsflash: We’re not Detroit. Kokonis and Mangini aren’t Matt Millen. A third round pick is a big deal.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Wow. Seriously? What has Kokinis done so far for you to have such blind faith?
You have to go all the way back to 2005 to find a Pro Bowler drafted in the 3rd round. That is not a big deal.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Who says we draft there? We can use it to move up. We can use it to trade for a player (like the Sean Rogers deal).
A third round pick has plenty of value.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
If we traded to be able to do a trade, I am scared.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Why? It’s an option. An option we don’t have if we don’t have 11 picks.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Exactly. And the more options we have…the better. Cause this teams needs ALOT of options.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
If the reason we did this trade is because we wanted picks to do another trade, I am scared
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Yes. You mentioned that. Why?
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Because its a stupid strategy. How can you not see that?
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
a 3rd round pick has a certain value. One of the parts of that value is the ability to use it in a trade. How can you not see that?
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
straw man
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Not at all. Nobody is arguing that the ONLY part of the strategy is to use a pick for more picks.
So yes, you are making a straw man argument.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
If that is the case, why not keep Edwards and use him as ammo on draft day to move up?
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Thank you
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Because between now and then, he continues to be a cancer; because there’s no guarantee that he doesn’t do something stupid like Stallworth; because there’s no guarantee that his value will increase between now and then; because the Jets were willing to give us more than he’s worth today; etc…
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Lets just trade away any player that has minor character issues so that there is no chance we have another Stallworth. That includes Steinbach.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Yeah, because that’s what i said…
:: rolls eyes ::
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Once again, how was he a cancer? Because Chris Mortensen says so?
And who is too say that he doesn’t start to click with DA and go on a tear? Increasing his trade value? That game can go both ways.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
cancer is a maybe. but a distracted, me-first, prima donna w/ questionable consistency and production is a definite.
is that a risk we can take?
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
…and that’s what i meant by a ‘cancer’. If you’re trying to build a team-first team, me-first players are a definite problem.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
IMO his talent out weighs his doucheyness. (Yep, made up a word).
I think that this roster is so talent deprived we have to take that risk.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
All the way back to 2005? Shocking. How many guys make the Pro Bowl in their first 4 years in the league?
woodsmeister - October 7, 2009
From the 2005 NFL draft there were 21 Pro Bowlers alone.
17 from the 2006 NFL draft.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
So Bernie are you against or for the trade?
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
I am not a fan. I think it was a move that didn’t have to be made right now.
Plus, Mangini said that he was going with the win now mentality when he named DA as starter. Then he turns around and trades our best offensive weapon. Doesn’t jive.
Instead of drating a pass rusher, we now need offensive playmakers. Badly. For the great return of Stuckey, an LB, and 2 late picks? Don’t like it. Mangini can spin it how he wants, but I have no idea how this makes us better.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
well…this is just made up.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Your right, he didn’t say it. His actions did. When he went to Derek Anderson over Brady Quinn, that was a win now move.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
i mean, a coach really should be doing his best to win every game. mangini needs to have an eye on the future and building out this squad, but obviously he’s trying to win. didn’t he make the right move, as evidenced by sunday? how’s momass going to develop w/o a qb delivering him the ball?
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
You are really contradicting yourself
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
uhhh…false.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
truth
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
he made the right decision for today — DA is the most likely qb to win games this season — and for the future. you need an offense that actually operates in order to develop momass, robiskie, davis, mack, etc.
so, you lose. again.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Anderson is not the long term answer, but I dont feel like getting into this argument again.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
i don’t think you’re wrong…but qb’s w/ a lot less talent, skill and ability have accomplished much more than derek has so far. why can’t he be a part of the solution if we build effectively around him?
quinn is not as good. you’re going to have to live with it.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
I will never live with it.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Dont try to take hope away from me, please. It is tough to be a Browns fan now, please dont make it tougher
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
This is a joyous time to be a Browns fan.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
?
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Benching Quinn should give you hope. It’s a sign we aren’t going to be content to let someone rest on his high draft status and college credentials. He has to earn a place just like the rest of the team.
Brad D - October 8, 2009
obviously the answer @ QB is Brady Quinn because he is a beast.
steelerstyle - October 8, 2009
Negative Rec
TheRealSlimShady - October 8, 2009
Yes he made the right move for this season. We lost by 3 instead of 20.
We already know what kind of QB DA is. Quinn on the other hand is a complete unknown. And this offseason the Browns will still have to sort through the whole “Who is the Browns QB?”. Shouldn’t Mangini be concerned with that?
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
quinn is by no means unknown. he is the type of qb that is not good. we know that.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
I agree, the move away from Quinn almost signals to me that he might be utterly hopeless. I doubt Mangini otherwise would make a move that quickly.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
We do not know that.
10 quarters with this coaching staff. That is pretty short sighted. Either that or Mangini has the greatest scouting staff ever.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
sure, 10 quarters with this staff…but there is actually tape that exists, which is available to be watched, of his other performances in both the nfl and in college.
it’s my position that he’s regressed. the best football he’s played as a pro was against SF in ’07, and the worst was the first half against b-more…and it was pretty linear (w/ a negative slope) in between. we may have seen why he plummeted down the draft.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
We don’t need to do this again, do we? 5 games isn’t enough to evaluate a QB.
He has had 2 opportunities- got hurt in one, an incomplete. And failed the second. Badly. He will get more chances, let’s talk about it again then.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Fair enough to you and DCMJ.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
10 quarters
with this staff.
Then add numerous practices.
What was the NFL slogan a few years back or NBA or whoever it was.
“Show Me Something”
Villeslgr - October 8, 2009
further, if we’re committed to developing the team as a whole, you need someone capable of running the offense to develop the other youngsters on offense, as pointed out above.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Do you really think that DA is the guy to teach the youngsters the ropes?
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
i don’t want anyone sitting at DA’s knee, learning the ways of the NFL…but i think that DA is a much better quarterback with whom to play for young players. he gets the ball out, throws to many targets, takes chances…and, quite frankly, is just wild enough to where the new players are going to have to figure out that having their head on a swivel and being ready to react quickly is a must in the NFL.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Interesting point.
I just think he is too eratic.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Thinks Bernie, Im glad someone else feels the seem about this crappy trade. Maybe Kotnkus (sp) needs the boot too…
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
I guess I was just thinking about our draft a couple of years ago. Granted we were without 1st-3rd picks. I just wondered if two players and two picks for a guy with one year on his contract was really such a good deal for the Jets.
From a Browns perspective I think it looks like a good deal, assuming Massaquoi continues to perform.
JustBob - October 7, 2009
that’s just not true. ask anyone legitimately in football…picks are the lifeblood of team building.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Agree.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Yes picks are good. How you get them is a million more times important. Using picks to get more picks is awesome. I love trading down. I wish the Browns did it as much as other teams. But trading away players for picks, is very rarely a good move.
Not to mention players that are in their prime. I would love the trade if we got a first (like Detroit got from Dallas for Roy Williams). But a 3rd and 5th round picks isnt a great package no matter how you slice it.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
we just don’t agree.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Thats cool. Brilliant people don’t always agree right?
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
What Dallas gave up for Williams is soooo far beyond his value, and soooo far beyond what any other team would have given for Williams that it makes just about every trade in the history of the league look bad by comparison (Herschel Walker trade excluded).
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Your right, they gave up alot. There has to be some middle ground.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
I think we can all agree that we did better than Oakland in the Randy Moss deal – didn’t they only get a 4th rounder for him? That is truly ridiculous!
bbstirrd - October 8, 2009
the Cleveland Browns:
Still probably a better organization than the Raiders.
rufio - October 8, 2009
Sounds like a slogan to me!
Bernie19Kosar - October 8, 2009
What a terrible trade. I knew it was coming but I was hoping it wouldn’t be with the freaking Jets. So to sum up our transactions with the Jets, we’ve given them their franchise QB and a probowl WR that requires a double team, for a 4th string QB, some backup LB’s, a young back-up quality safety, an average DE and a ST player? Also a 3 and 5 rounder which i’m sure we’ll make terrible use of. This is ridiculous
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
In fairness on the Edwards trade, his contract expires this year, and he was certainly not going to resign with the Browns.
I still think we could have gotten more, though. If that 3rd rounder becomes a 2nd rounder, I’ll fell a little better about this.
bbstirrd - October 7, 2009
A terrible summation.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
I may have you confused with someone else, but weren’t you just saying it was ridiculous for some of us to say that Braylon was good enough to require a double team a day or two ago?
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Great point. Some people just like to complain no matter what.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Rocland has managed to disagree with every move the Browns have made, it is sort of his trademark. Anyone that can find any sort of positive with the team is just a homer, and he has been justified by the 0-4 start.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
I’m not just blind like you guys come off to be. Me comments were in regards to his play, not his VALUE. His value is worth more than his play.
You guys on the other hand acted like this man was the second coming of jesus during the preseason, and now all of a sudden when the browns make a move with his he’s worth rags? You may say I complain but I’m realistic. I criticize when they make a stupid move. You on the other hand has justified every move this team has made, even though every single move has not helped the team in any way. Even though I’ve been right on pretty much every point I’ve made.
So while you sit around and follow the browns every move like a lemming, and then get you heart broken and cry like you’ve have from this 0-4 start when things hit the fan, I’ve seen this mess coming a mile away.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
The way I see it is that you want to complain about every move Mangini makes, so you do your best to find a middle ground where you can rip on the players, but then criticize the coach when he actually goes ahead and trades one of them.
In order to do so though, you make a gross exaggeration like how the rest of us thought that Braylon was the second coming of Jesus. You on the other hand, are more sensible and think he just has some “value,” but that he is actually unproductive.
Now that Mangini has traded him, you are in the position to criticize (which is all you know how to do) because of the fictitious value you believe exists outside of his actual production which you were trashing him for before.
It’s two-sided and annoying.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Thank you.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
rec'd
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
I complain about every move mangini makes because they are bad moves. Every move so far that he has made I’ve been right about. And every opinion I’ve made has been right
I admit my exaggeration was intentional and not meant to be taken seriously, but the optimism you and you apologist crew had was ridiculous and unrealistic. I was the one saying that he wasn’t going to do much this offseason and should have been traded. I was the one stating we should get something while his value was the highest. It was you and your other delusional fans who thought out of the clear blue sky he would be a pro-bowler again.
Once again I know your comprehension is lacking, but its more about what was received in return and who it was with. But off course you’re gonna justify it despite just a while ago believe he was a key part in our up and coming season.
So whose the true two sider here? In the offseason according to your types, he’s coming back to the 2007 form. 4 games into the season and after your hope is gone, he’s worth rags and some backup’s. And now our WR core consists of some rookies and washed up players. My position has always been Mangini has been making nothing but bad moves and that continues today.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
I just about stopped reading after this. Nobody is right or wrong about any of his moves. Like Peter King said, Cleveland can’t be rated on this trade for at least two years. I’d argue for both the #5 pick trade and the Edwards trade we need to wait 2 years from today to have any idea on how to evaluate it.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
100% impossible to be correct about everything when Mangini has been coach for only 4 games. The fact that you believe this is exposing yourself as delusional to the rest of the community. But what does that matter to you, we are all a bunch of loser apologists.
If by my “optimism” you mean my prediction that the Browns would win a whopping 7 games and miss the playoffs. Perhaps I was a bit more optimistic than reality, but that doesn’t seem all that rosy. Mangini inherited a 4-12 team, I am going to give him a chance and wait a few years before I decide if he worked out or not.
I’d like you to provide me with evidence that I ever said anything about Braylon being a Pro Bowler again. If you’d like, I can provide you with multiple instances of where in the offseason I advocated trading Braylon.
Actually, Braylon was a key part of this season. He has struggled and so have the Browns. Not a coincidence.
Repeating an incorrect assertion does not make it more true. Your ability to generalize and group everyone but yourself into one apologist crew is impressive, yet sad.
This is actually the one thing you have said that I am okay with. It is fine to disagree with the moves the team is making. It is a little odd that you immediately dismiss every move, but maybe you are a great football mind and have that kind of foresight. I, on the other hand, want to give the guy a chance to rebuild the mess he inherited.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Root for Buffalo, pal.
rufio - October 8, 2009
This is good.
Bernie19Kosar - October 8, 2009
recd
rufio - October 8, 2009
“VALUE” is perceived until realized. I doubt the Jets are the only teams that had inquired about Braylon, nor the only team that the Browns had contacted. The fact that the FO spent two 2nd round picks on WRs should have told you they weren’t counting on BE to be a part of the team’s future.
You can say your house is worth $150,000… but if the highest bid you get from a buyer is $110,000, then guess what? It’s value ain’t $150,000.
rolub - October 7, 2009
value is realized by the owning party initially, and also is dependent on the condition of the parties involved in the transaction. BE had more value to us because of our offensive situation. So now our WR group is that much younger and has to work that much harder without teams game planning on BE. And BE was really the most stable piece in our WR group with the rest being either rookies, playing out of position or washed up. So his value is easily realized by us and is greater to us. And we gave up a lot of value for some draft picks. The players don’t even count.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
Sure they do.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
BE had less value to us because he was in the last year of his contract playing for an 0-4 team that is heading nowhere in 2009 and extremely unlikely to consider re-signing with the Browns during the offseason.
I guess we could have kept him, gone 3-13 this year, and watch him walk in March and get nothing in return.
rolub - October 7, 2009
Right, while things like the franchise tag make football contracts more complicated than, say, baseball, you are still trading contracts, not players.
We are saying that 12 games of Edwards is not worth as much as multiple seasons of Stuckey, Chusnik and two players we’ll pick up in the next draft. Thinking of it this way- like a Shapiro/baseball style move- it makes a ton of sense.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Which is enhanced by the fact that the 12 games of Braylon are almost certainly going to be in a season in which we don’t make the postseason.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
the more i thought about this deal, the more i thought Shap and Mangini have been spending some quality time during family get-togethers.
rolub - October 7, 2009
Huh?
His value is what he has produced thus far and what he “might produce” the rest of the season as it was becoming fairly obvious that he would not resign in the off-season.
As far as value to us, we appear to be stuck in the mud and the one receiver who looked to have any value on the team was MegaMass and not Edwards.
Heck Royal almost looked better than Edwards on Sunday.
How would we realize Edwards value if he is not doing anything for us?
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
I like your point about him walking too. We were in a bad place with a malcontent player. We probably could not have gotten full “value” for his talent level given the bind he put us in with his walk year coming up.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Yeah
That was my point I was struggling to get that out. I just feel regardless of his “talent = value” level we weren’t getting that so his value becomes what we are getting versus what we can get in a trade.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Right, agree completely.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Everything is worth what it’s purchaser will pay for it.
danvail - October 7, 2009
literally, everything. anyone who argues otherwise is fooling themselves.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
So a carbon emission that I buy for X dollars, that will someday destroy the habitability of the planet, isn’t worth more than X dollars? Just saying…
kwoog - October 11, 2009
i mean, in the strictest sense, which is all i’m applying here, no that emission credit is not worth more than X dollars. it’s worth what someone will pay for it.
DontCallMeJoey - October 12, 2009
Alex Mack
Mohammed Massoquoi
Coye Francies
James Davis
Abram Elam
Kenyon Coleman
Brett Ratliff
Chansi Stuckey
Jason Trusnik
A 3rd Round Pick in 2010 (which could become a 2nd)
A fifth round pick in 2010
for
Edwards and a first round pick
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
I think we’ve had this conversation before. None of those guys on the above list are anything to get excited about. Except for Massoquoi, and Mack, you are talking about a bunch of role players and backups. Not that Edwards was anything to be excited about either.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Well, you keep telling us how terrible Braylon is so what would you expect us to get in return for him? He drops a lot of passes, right? That’s all you ever say about him.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
but he still had value regardless. I swear some of you guys are like lemmings.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
If Edwards was not going to resign.
How much value did he have really?
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
This is hilarious. First, you spend days trashing Braylon, but then you complain when they trade?
You can’t weild the double-edged sword here man. Your act is annoying.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Oh, I think it is a good deal for the Browns. Trading Braylon and getting anything back for him above a 5th round draft pick is great. I"m just making fun of the list of players because people keep bringing up all of these players when the reality is we are talking role players and backups, except for MoMass and Mack.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Elam and Coleman have both been serviceable, something we didn’t have at those positions before.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Neither of those guys would start for any other AFC North team.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
They’d both have a shot at starting for the Bengals. The 2 other teams in the division arguably have the 2 best defenses in the league.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Right. Comparing our defensive players to players from the Ravens and Steelers is rather unfair. Just because a player isn’t as good as those guys doesn’t mean he isn’t a valuable player.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
the browns fans only call for servicable team pieces. and somehow they were expecting a better season this year filling our team with average mediocre talent
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
While Rocland, however, whines about everything the Browns do and chides us all for saying anything positive even when it is warrented. He then tries to make his points with exaggeration and hyperbole.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
And while you follow the browns every move like a mindless drone, you then cry and complain when things don’t work out. So the next games they lose because the passing game has to work that much harder, don’t go into the game thread and start complaining okay and talking about how pointless this season is okay?
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
I think we will probably acknowledge that this season is a lost cause, and we are best off rebuilding the team and preparing for the future.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
By trading away pieces that we’ve relied on for players at the bottom of the Jets depth chart, I’m sure the apologists on this board will continue to use the “looking towards the future” excuse to make themselves feel better, the same excuse we’ve been using for a decade.
But its funny how are we “rebuilding” when the Browns were never a standing structure?
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
Except
those players weren’t at the bottom of the Jets depth chart. And yeah we have been very bad in the past but just because we have made mistakes in the past does not preclude us from making progress with our current moves. If that’s what you believe why watch or even comment on anything the team does?
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Well, we were 4-12 last year and a new coach was brought in, so I would argue that rebuilding was necessary.
I assume you would agree we need to rebuild. It’s fine if you disagree with some of the draft picks or how they are going about getting new players.
Criticizing every move without giving the guy a chance is what I take issue with. I am not 100% blindly behind Mangini, but I want to give him a chance.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
you’ve blindly followed everything he has done this year with little oppression. I can’t give everything he does a chance if I greatly oppose it. the QB battle, the fines and every other thing he has done that made this city look like a joke in the media is what I hold him to, as well as his player moves which have yet to improve this team in any way.
When he does something that I approve of, I will give him credit. But so far the only thing he has done has been to stack up on jets players, get picks that he wastes IMO and have a cold bilicheck wanna be demeanor.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
You’re right, I don’t have a mind of my own. I will agree with everything Mangini does and more importantly the Browns organization.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
You predicted a 8-8 record for a team that made no significant upgrades and had no spark. And now after ignoring common sense and justifying all the off-season moves, you and other similar fans act heartbroken at this pathetic start. So your sarcasm can be taken as realistic
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
My justification was the soft schedule, and my belief that we did upgrade on defense some. I have been wrong thus far about this season.
That said, I believe Mangini is taking the right approach and is building a long-term winner. The jury is out on his moves, and here is the key which bears repeating – I want to give him a chance.
Moves I have disagreed with which I have openly expressed on this here site.
1. Should have traded Braylon before the draft.
2. Should have targeted more defensive help in the early rounds of the draft. I want to build the team through defense.
3. Wanted to cut Stallworth even before the drunk driving incident.
4. Wanted to cut Corey Williams
5. Wanted to cut Jamal Lewis
6. Playing Josh Cribbs early in the season as the number 2 receiver and diminishing his special teams role.
7. Not playing Massaquoi immediately, thought he was ready.
I could provide evidence for all of these, but it’s not worth it because you wouldn’t change your opinion.
A lot of the other moves which you automatically dismiss, I have not even opined on because I want to see what happens before I vote one way or the other.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
I should note that just because I don’t act like a whiny bitch about it doesn’t mean I am apologist for all things Browns.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
To be honest, this is a situation of two fan having two different ways of thinking. In the end I respect your way of being a fan though I must admit I’m very critical of it.
I have a very realistic and full rounded way of looking at everything in my life. And not trying to come off as arrogant or anything, that way of thinking has caused me to predict every single meltdown, major loss and major win for every cleveland team from the indians to the cavs to the buckeyes in every sport. And also by not allow my love for the team to cloud my judgment. So that accuracy has cause me to have the confidence to very directly vocalize my opinion and when I see something that I feel won’t work out. It also has saved me from a lot of heartbreak
This offseason people on this board thought the moves that were made would improve the team from last year. I didn’t and I vocalized that whether it came off as to critical or not but so far I’ve been right with that regard at least.
But we both have been through the same turmoil as browns fans and we will continue to look at things differently. I have to be proven that things are different and you go with the flow and have to be proven otherwise. And I respect you for that. Sorry if I got a little hostile in this debate
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
You don’t display that here.
I highly doubt that is true. Do you really expect us to predict that your are clairvoyant when it comes to the outcomes of sporting events? And if so, why aren’t you in Vegas putting your money where you mouth is.
You have done nothing but whine, complain, and make things up that aren’t true (telling us we said things which we never said). Sorry if I don’t have any respect for your opinions.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
I said the browns would suck this year and low and behold
I’m not trying to convince you shit. Just stating that I believe in my opinion and stand by it. I could care less if you respect my opinion because when it boils down to it you are the butthurt fan who thought the browns would go 8-8.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
Calling names — way to show your maturity.
I’d like to see evidence of all the things you keep telling me I said. I never said the Braylon would be a Pro Bowler this year and I never said we’d go 8-8 (I said 6 or 7 wins at best).
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
This so much laughable BS that it is incredibly difficult to ever take you seriously.
DisplacedBuckeye - October 7, 2009
I have no dog in this fight (heh) but you’re doing an awesome job of coming across as an arrogant egotistical ass in these posts. Just thought you might like an unbiased opinion.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - October 9, 2009
I apologize as well.
The only thing you just wrote that I take issue with is the characterization of going with the flow. I would say that I am more of the mindset that there are people doing things that I just don’t have enough information to criticize immediately. I am not a professional scout, so I often don’t criticize draft picks until I see them after a couple years.
I am not trying to be an apologist, I just want to give the regimes a fair chance to rebuild the team. I am not quick to judge after 4 games, but after 2-3 years, I think it is fair to reassess and determine if they were a success or a failure.
A lot of my comments are attempts to figure out why the moves were made as they did, not always a justification of the moves.
I think every Cleveland fan at this point could assume the worst and be right 100% of the time, but it is really depressing to be that way, and maybe I am still young enough that I haven’t been burnt enough to be jaded by it.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
I agree, it is rough to be so negative but I like to look at things without being knee-jerk reactive. I’m not trying to being negative so I could be right, but if they would have addressed some issues that I believed would have helped the team then I would have been more optimistic. I didn’t see much of a change, so why should I expect a product that was different from last year? And that’s what i built my opinion off of. I admit this trade will be favorable if that 3rd rounder turns into a 2nd.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
Haha, what a complete DB.
kwoog - October 7, 2009
what a joke. you are a total ass.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Obviously. If you keep predicting the team will suck, they eventually will and you get to be the know it all saying “told you so.” Congrats, you’re that guy.
Brad D - October 8, 2009
Players who are starters aren’t at the “bottom of the depth chart”, as you said.
How long is it going to take for you to realize that just making things up doesn’t count as analysis?
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Quit. 2007. 10-6. It was a standing structure with Fraley, Schaeffer, Edwards, Winslow, Lewis, Jurevicious as giant parts of that team.
In 2008 they all had problems- injuries, age, diminishing skills, off the field issues. It was clear that we needed to rebuild.
The Winslow trade, the move for Mack and Davis, the draft of two WRs, and now moving Edwards are all no-brainers.
Also, the you consistently are underrating the former Jets players we are getting.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
2007 was an abberation which came from an easy schedule. One winning season doesn’t equate to a solid team nor a structure and if it was, that structure wouldn’t crumble the next season. That would be like saying the Dolphins are rebuilding after their winning season last year.
none of the jets players we got would start on any other team in the league. Most weren’t even starters on the jets!
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
It would be like if the Dolphins rebuilt next year after Ronnie Brown fumbled 10 times this year, Ricky Williams aged to ineffectiveness, Pennington had career ending injuries (which he might have) and Ted Ginn Jr. became an off the field nightmare.
Also, Coleman was a starter and would be a starter for most, if not all, 3-4 teams. Barton was a starter and while not an impact ILB, still a solid guy that would start on many teams.
Elam would start on a more than a handful of teams.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
no he wouldn’t. Thats a flat out FACT. and Barton would start on few, if not any 3-4 teams and absolutely no 4-3 teams. Just the fact that you believe such things makes it pointless to even debate with you.
And Elam would only start on the team that drafted him if they had no one else…like us. The Jets are having more success with Rhodes and Leonhard
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
Coleman was a darn good player his whole career. And a starter for the last 2 years for a decent defense.
What the heck are you basing this stuff on?
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Fact: stating something as fact does not make it a fact. Fact.
rufio - October 8, 2009
so the fact you just stated, I shouldn’t necessarily believe.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
Paradox.
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
My brain exploded.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
Fact: 75% of statistics are completely made up.
bbstirrd - October 8, 2009
I believe this 50% of the time.
Bernie19Kosar - October 8, 2009
Actually, I do nothing of that sort. You obviously don’t pay attention to my comments very well because you already posted something else that I supposedly said which I never did.
If you need to lie and make up things to get across your point then maybe you should rethink your point.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
And you kept telling us how he would come back this year and have another pro-bowl season. He had 16 TD passes in 07 right? Now he’s worth rags right?
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
Please show when I said he would have a Pro Bowl season this year.
Also, two players and two picks aren’t “rags”. Stuckey looks like a nice #2 or #3 receiver, which every team needs. Every move a team makes can’t be for a superstar.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
The Pats did pretty well in the early 2000’s with a bunch of what were considered ‘role players’ and ‘backups’ at the time
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
And a Hall of Fame QB.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
My point exactly. Brady WASN’T a BACKUP?!? Ummm….Drew Bledsoe?
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Now certainly our young guys most likely won’t end up being hall of famers…but who can really say until we see what they have on the field? Until Bledsoe got injured I don’t think there’s a SINGLE person who thought a six round backup who rode the pine in college his first 2 years would become what he did.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Davis and Elam have looked pretty good when I’ve gotten to see them.
rufio - October 8, 2009
so you just proved my point. A bunch of pointless players for some impactful players.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
?
Who are these “impactful” players?
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
one of them is Mark Sanchez, who put in the 27th best performance among QBs this past week.
so he was more impactful than 1 QB.
rolub - October 7, 2009
Except
He was never on our team, nor was he going to be drafted by the team.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Four of those players are rookies, two more are starters, and two more are future draft picks. You call that pointless?
You might be overreacting just a tad…
bbstirrd - October 7, 2009
Just because they’re not big name players doesn’t make them pointless. Every good team needs solid players to fill in around the great players. Most of these guys are much better than the players they replaced, which makes us better.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
you can have a fight with mooncamping about whether it is better to have a team of 1 WR or a team of 11 FBs
APV - October 7, 2009
haha
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
every one of the players you listed that has played for the browns the first 4 games has contributed more than BE has this season, with the exception of Ratliff.
Dawg Nuts - October 7, 2009
you know who else is a Pro Bowl receiver?
Chris Chambers.
Chris Chambers would not net a #2 receiver, ST ace, and two draft picks.
rolub - October 7, 2009
chambers is like 35
The Licensed Pessimist - October 7, 2009
So when Edwards is 35 and still only a one-time Pro Bowler, we can get together for some coffee and laugh about the good ol’ days.
Deal?
rolub - October 7, 2009
Not being facetious, but he is 31.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
I think they probably got as much as they were gonna get for him. I highly doubt teams were breaking down the door offering anything better. He WAS gone after this year so something >nothing.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Truly one of those “nothing to lose” scenarios. The Browns have enough problems without a headache like Edwards hanging around getting more and more troubled as the season progresses.
Pruitt - October 7, 2009
WOW Edwards traded on my B-day. THX MANGINI!
Brownie's Year - October 7, 2009
No one showed up to my party. I’ll have to drink all these Heinekens/Mooseheads alone. :(
Brownie's Year - October 7, 2009
By the way, our apologies for getting this story up late. SB Nation unfortunately had a few server problems this morning, which caused some delay in the ability to post or comment on the situation.
Chris Pokorny - October 7, 2009
Yeah, I had trouble logging on this morning.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
24th best receiver in 2007
I know everyone knows that I don’t think Braylon Edwards is very good or anything to get upset about losing. According to Football Outsiders he was the 24th best WR in his best and only good year in the NFL, 2007.
He had a very low catch rate of 52% And before I hear about TO and Randy Moss, TO had a respectable 57% catch rate and Moss was at 61% that year.
So I wouldn’t worry about a receiver who was just 24th best in the NFL in his only good year.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Wait, this is absurd. 52% is bad, but 57% is respectable? The difference is minimal considering how many attempts these guys have in an entire season.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
5% means about 8 more passes caught for Edwards. Which probably means another TD and quite a few more first downs for the offense. I don’t think that is insignificant.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Also, go check the chart, not too many good receivers are down there with Edwards. It’s pretty much him and Burress as the only guys in the low 50 percent range.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Burress is a terrific receiver. Moss and Owens both have what could be considered “low” catch rates, despite your attempt to make them look better than Edwards.
The drop rate is not that important a stat.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Ugh, it’s not just the drop rate. He was ranked 24th overall as a receiver in his best year. That isn’t very good. Which is why it was a good idea to trade him.
Why do Browns fans continue to think that Edwards was something he wasn’t?
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Maybe because I don’t take the Football Outsiders “ranking” as Gospel. His 16 TD 2007 season happened to coincide with a 10-6 record, something that hadn’t happened since the Browns return. This was not a coincidence. He was outstanding that year.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
OK OK
Can we agree that we disagree on Braylon Edwards and how good he is?
I don’t think he was a good player and you think he was a good player.
Now, I do think it was a good trade in that getting rid of Edwards and getting anything back is a good trade.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Actually, we probably are close to agreeing, I don’t think he is a top receiver.
I do think you sell his 2007 year short, which is my main disagreement.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Ah
That’s kind of what I think as well, that he just isn’t a top receiver. I sell his 2007 year short because I don’t think it was all that great but I go a little bit over the top to point out the flaws in that year in order to try to convince the rest of Brown dom that Edwards is a replaceable guy, not an untouchable.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
I made the case in the offseason for trading Braylon often, largely because I thought he had no desire to give the Browns his best effort or remain with the team.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Yeah, I remember that. I don’t know if it was ever real but I remember arguing that if the Giants offer of Steve Smith was real they should take it.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
I was a fan of getting Steve Smith back, but my understanding is that the Giants would not include Smith and instead wanted to include Manningham or Hixon.
In retrospect, getting Manningham would have been the right move.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Thogh it should be noted that they got essentially the same deal after Edwards punched someone in the face.
It looks to me that they were right to hold out if his value has remained unchanged now that he has the possibility of jail time and a suspension hanging over his head.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
I think they offered Manningham or Hixon.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Hindsight is always 20/20, but Manningham would look good right now, but has the same no-so-compatible background as Edwards, had he not performed well.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
Exactly. Talent/potential aside, which obviously he has/had, has nothing to do with the fact that he most likely was on his way out the door. I think most of us agree with that.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
We all know Edwards had superstar potential – which is hard to quantify. That is why it was so maddening having him on the Browns; he never could quite live up to that potential.
bbstirrd - October 7, 2009
Why do you continue to come here and constantly tell us how bad Braylon is? I mean, I know you enjoy telling everyone how bad the Browns suck but this is getting a little ridiculous.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
I guess I don’t have much else to do. BTW, will you be in Y-town on black Friday? I’m trying to gget some people together to go out that night. Predrink at my house of course.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
Yup, I’m in.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Cool, I think Jojo will be around and Pete as well. I’m trying to get Brent and Troy. I’m not sure if the wife will be around or at her house.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
A really nice summation by James Walker of why we had to make the trade.
For those that are upset, I am curious to see with what points you disagree with Walker on.
Link
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Good article from Dorn above…
I can’t see why so many people are critical of this trade. It was long overdue. Braylon seemed to have little or no work ethic, didn’t like Cleveland, behaved like a fool off the field and was obviously getting worse during games (both in performance and attitude). Add to that he led the league last year in drops (even beating out running backs in this statistic) and has been in the top three of intended receivers that resulted in interceptions and I just don’t see him as number one receiver material.
It is clear he needed a new start also. So this is probably best for him too. I’m not a big believer in forcing a player, especially one that has show his attitude, to be a Brown via franchise tag. Braylon does not conduct himself as a professional and I’d not expect him to give his best in that situation. So I think trading him was the beat move.
Also, coach Mangini must have had something in mind like this all along… this might explain picking 2 wide-receivers as high as he did in last year’s draft.
Brownsyup - October 7, 2009
Agree. I’m somewhat surprised by the vitriol displayed by some posters here. I’m not even convinced about Braylon’s overall talent level. Yes, he has some, but to think that he is or ever was an elite receiver just isn’t borne out by the facts of the matter. He’s one of those curious guys who can make the spectacular play, and particularly good at leaping catches. In fact, part of his problem was the sometimes jumped when it wasn’t necessary, upsetting his timing. So the spectacular play seemed to indicate that he could do that reliably, and it just wasn’t so. He very often blew the routine catch. He might have physical tools, but the real sum of a player’s ability is the combination of physical and mental tools, including the ability to focus and concentrate. How can anybody argue that Edwards was good at that?
The Browns did exceptionally well to get this combination of players and picks.
drjeo - October 7, 2009
thanks for the link, I agree with this summation
Riverboat Sam - October 7, 2009
Also, go check the chart, not too many good receivers are down there with Edwards. It’s pretty much him and Burress as the only guys in the low 50 percent range.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
I initially didn’t like the trade and voted No. But once I remembered he might have been an unrestricted free agent, I definitely like the deal A LOT more. Imma changin’ ma vote!
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
In the NFL a team never has to let a player leave. Never.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
It might be dumb to franchise a player, though, who makes it clear he has no desire to sign a long-term deal with the Browns and wants out.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
But hasn’t Mangini shown a pattern of not caring what a player wants?
The Browns can always use the tag as a part of a sign and trade.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Wouldn’t that assume someone wanted him for a 1st round and a second round or two first rounders?
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
No you can tag a player and then trade him for whatever you want. If you tag a player and then someone SIGNS him they have to give up a ton. That is why it is never done (I think Sean Gilbert was last Franchise player to be signed by another team).
But the team has complete control over what they can do with said player.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Ok, so you have now used your franchise tag on a player you don’t want and are forced to pay him $10M.
Still, the bigger problem is, the question if Edwards’ value would be any different in a year- and assuming any difference in value would actually be higher.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
in fact, an extremely credible argument can be made that franchising edwards and THEN trying to trade him would detract from his value. to wit…matt cassel/mike vrabel. taking on a $10mm+ contract for a potential chump (which is what edwards is) is a bitter pill.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
good point
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
The only thing that killed Cassel’s value was the Pats.
They are the one who turned down a first rounder for him. Him being franchised had nothing to do with his value. It actually allowed the Pats to trade him.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Impact of an uncapped 2010 on potential free agents. including BE.
read this back in August and glad I could find it now.
rolub - October 7, 2009
Yeah, but they have to pay through the teeth to keep him.
Edwards wasn’t worth a franchise tag.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Max Starks got a franchise tag last year.
You would have a hard time telling me that Braylon wasn’t worth a tag.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
How much would they have to pay him if they franchised him? Isn’t it the average of the top 5 salaries at his position? That seems like way too much for Braylon if you ask me.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
2009 franchise values.
rolub - October 7, 2009
I just think Braylon made it clear that he wanted no part of the Browns, and Mangini didn’t want to force a malcontent to stay.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
But doesn’t that open up a Denver like situation with Jay Cutler/Brandon Marshall?
What if Joe Thomas decides that he wants out? Just go punch LeBrons friend in the face and pack your bags? Cincy and Denever have both played hardball with pissed off WR’s and they both got their acts together.
If BE was being that big of a pain in the ass, suspend him for 4 games and then see what he does.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
As much as I think Cutler is awesome, the Broncos are 4-0. Removing malcontents may be the best course of action sometimes.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Except Brandon Marshall wasn’t removed…
rufio - October 8, 2009
I also won’t acknowledge the Joe Thomas point because Thomas and Edwards couldn’t be further apart as human beings.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
I would love to see Braylon Edwards hosting a fishing show on STO with D’Arcy Egan.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
He should probably learn to catch a football before he learns to catch a fish.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Big Fish that got away stories
are always better than dropped passes in the 4th quarter stories.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Yeah, even if you don’t think off the field and attitude things are not that important, NFL teams- especially for Mangini- do think this is a huge part of a player. That is to say Joe Thomas is so valuable, in part, because he did come into camp on time, and you don’t have headaches, silly personal fouls, suspensions, etc. to worry about.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Joe Thomas is valuable because he is the best LT in football. Him being a great person is just a cherry on top.
I am not saying that we should sign PacMan, etc. but coaches have always been willing to over look a guys off the field issues if they are talented. Billacheat did it for Randy Moss. Parcells did it for LT.
The “we care about what kind of person player X is” is great until you start losing football games.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Again, I generally agree with this line of thinking. But in a league where 4 game and season long suspensions are a very real probability, it would be negligent to fail to discount personal flaws.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
But do we think that Edwards is headed for a 4 game ban?
Only PacMan and Chris Henry have gotten 4 games for off the field stuff. (That was just off the top of my head, help me if I am forgetting someone.) Marshawn Lynch got two games for hitting someone with a car.
I think Braylon went out after a close game where he played like crap, had some cocktails (which is fine by me), heard someone talking trash and popped him. Not saying it was right by any means, but it sounds like a loss of judgement.
Unless I am forgetting something, I don’t ever remember Edwards getting into trouble off the field.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
depends on what you mean by trouble.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
the thing is
Mangini has made it obvious this year that he isn’t willing to accept those kind of players on the team. So therefore what other coaches are willing to overlook or accept is inconsequential.
Mangini has already decided that he is doing things his way and if they work they work and if they don’t they don’t and he is comfortable losing his job over that.
He isn’t comfortable relying on players who he feels are unwilling to get onboard with his program. Which is another reason why Edwards would not have been back next year.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
This is the primary reason why I like Mangini. Even if we don’t win with him as coach, he won’t leave a mess behind him. This is the way this franchise should have been handled from day one.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
This team is a mess right now. Except now we have ANOTHER hole to fill in this offseason and we have a 3rd and 5th rounder in which to fill it.
That doesn’t sound like progress to me.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
To me
the progress comes moving forward. Instead of Romeo stuttering his way through how the team is improving or will improve, Mangini seems to be more proactive and is actively attempting to make the team better.
Of course he is doing that his way, and whether or not his way works has yet to be seen. However I prefer a coach who is willing to take responsibility for the team, the players, and his decision, than one who sits there with an aw shucks look on his face everytime something goes wrong.
The word of the day is ACCOUNTABILITY.
Also we don’t have to fill that hole with a 3rd or a 5th rounder. We have a 1st round pick and more than likely might make a move on one of our QBs if given the chance to gain something else.
My problem right now is that we seem to be a step behind on our decision making. Hopefully this proves to be a turning point where the team decides to make their own way instead of allowing things to happen to them.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Great, so instead of drafting a pass rusher that we have needed forever, we will draft a WR in the first round and hope, HOPE that they turn out as good as Braylon Edwards.
That is not progress.
This I agree with you on. A week ago today, our head coach told us that he was going with DA because he gave us the better chance to win right now.
So does this make us better right now?
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Interesting to see how our WR position plays out from now to the end of the year. I think its too early to call WR a position of need going into the draft. Let’s see what Stuckey, Robiskie, Massaquoi, and even Furrey do for us this year.
I agree with your last point, this makes the QB situation look a little more botched.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
WR is one of the last positions we should fill. Why the heck would we take another WR ahead of a pass rusher if the better talent available is a pass rusher?
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Because the Browns now have the worst WR group in the NFL.
The only team who comes close is the Rams.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
The Browns have a young WR group. There’s a huge difference between a young group and a bad group.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Both are bad. same thing to me
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Actually, no they’re not the same. Young receivers always take a while to develop — that doesn’t mean they won’t be good some day.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Who outside of MoMass (for one game no less), has given us anything other than a glimpse?
Granted WR’s take awhile to come around, but a second round WR, shouldn’t be a healthy scratch for his first four games. (Can’t remember if he has played at all, he may have been in one game.)
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Most WRs do nothing initially, I am not worried yet about Robo. If he is the same in seasons 2 and 3, then we have a problem.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
the robiskie situation thus far has been really disheartening…but he has dressed and played in 2 games, for the record.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
It could just be me. I didn’t like the pick from jump street.
His main selling point was the fact that he was drive off the lot ready. He has been MIA. That isnt a good sign.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
I don’t put a lot of stock into the NFL ready stuff. The large majority of NFL receivers start their careers slowly.
Only a few exceptions exist.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
i agree with your feelings about the pick, but i’m not quite willing to judge so far.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Yea, I should add since I have been accused of being an apologist, that I had preferred we target defense early and often over taking WRs.
I am on record believing WRs should come later after other foundation pieces are put in place.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
i think i said the same thing in the same thread, actually.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
Well this trade gives us no defensive help.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Our third round pick in the 2008 draft didn’t help us on Defense either, did it?
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
By no means am I ready to wash my hands of Robo. I am just very disappointed by what we have seen.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
I’ll repeat what was said above a few times; receivers almost always take a couple years to adjust to the NFL. It is rare for a receivers to have a big impact in his rookie year, no matter how high he was drafted. So it’s way, way too eearly to be worried about MoMass and Robo. Let’s see what those guys look like at the end of the season before we start worrying about drafting a WR high next year.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
thats simply not true, Its actually a flat out lie. Desean Jackson, Eddie Royal, Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, Breaston, Boldin, Calvin Johnson, Colston, Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Anthony Gonzo, Steve Smith, hell even Braylon Edwards all had success their rookie year if they were put directly into action. I’m bold enough to say that the rookie season is a pretty good factor if they were given playing time. And there are many instances of high round draft picks being busts if they didn’t have good rookie seasons. ie Roy Williams, Carlos Rogers, Troy Williamson, Mike Williams, Reggie Brown, Rosco Parrish, etc.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 8, 2009
Some of those you included did not put up good numbers their rookie year:
Brandon Marshall: 20 catches, 309 yards, 2 TDs
Holmes: 49 catches, 824 yds, 2 TD (decent)
Gonzalez: 37 catches, 576 yards, 3 TDs
Steve Smith: 10 catches, 154 yards, 0 TDs
Additionally, players like Calvin Johnson and LArry Fitz had decent numbers their rookie years, but were vastly improved over the rest of their careers. These are top talents in the league.
Eddie Royal is plan awful this year.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
Breaston’s rookie year: 8 catches, 92 yards, 0 TDs
Did you even look the stats up before you made this list?
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
In summary, Massaquoi in one game outperformed Breaston’s rookie year.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
No, you’re wrong. Many of those guys you listed did not have very good seasons their rookie year. Now, I’m not saying they were awful, but nowhere they weren’t a consistant threat every week like they would become after a few years in the league. It’s pretty well accepted in the NFL that the third season is usually the breakout year for rookies (of course that’s not always true).
Of course there are always exceptions, and sometimes rookies receivers will come in the league and put up a good season right away, but that’s quite rare — even for great receivers.
As Roger said, did you look up any stats or just pick names off the top of your heard? Please don’t call me a liar when you are completely wrong.
Buckeye Brad - October 8, 2009
who won the super bowl last year in your universe? sure sounds like a different place…
DontCallMeJoey - October 8, 2009
the comment was that rookie wr don’t have an impact their rookie year. That list was off the top of my head but hitting 9 out of 12 adds some truth regardless. The top WR’s in this league who didn’t have good Rookie season didn’t start or play much their rookie year. And if they didn’t, they played great their sophmore year. That’s a far cry from “it takes several years to make an impact”. Thats simply a lie, all of those players where beast either their first or second year. And for every top round pick that didn’t have a good year if they were starting or getting significant playing time, they suck. You’re just trying to protect MoMass and Rob but if they become starters and produce to some affect, then there is a good chance they’ll flop. Simple as that.
The Licensed Pessimist - October 8, 2009
Dude, get your facts straight. That comment had nothing to do with MoMass or Robiskie or anyone in particular — it’s a simply fact about the NFL that anyone who follows the league will admit. I’ve been hearing people talk about the typical 3-year developmental process for rookie WR’s for years, long before the Browns drafted those guys. So please don’t tell me I’m just making this up to defend the Browns. That’s ridiculous.
You didn’t hit 9 of 12. Once again, you’re just making things up and stating it as fact.
Buckeye Brad - October 8, 2009
the only thing i can say about this post is that you succeeded in making no sense whatsoever. 100%. congrats.
DontCallMeJoey - October 8, 2009
I was thinking
More that there are moves that Mangini still plans on making that he thinks will better the team and that the option is there with a 1st round pick.
Personally I would prefer to see what the plethora of young guys we already have can do and attempt to get someone with some experience to compliment them if need be. I’ve never liked receiver’s in the 1st round. Also I don’t think it takes much hope to turn out as good as the “Cleveland Browns Braylon Edwards.” For whatever reason I just don’t see Edwards as capable of doing anything in a Browns jersey. And I actually wouldn’t be overly surprised to see him have some success with the Jets.
As far as right now, I don’t think there is any move that could be made that would have made us better. Unfortunately when you are the coach of an 0 – 4 team that has had maybe two years that could be considered success in 10, you don’t have the luxury of only looking at how moves make you better right now.
With the DA statement, I think Mangini was just pulling something out of his ass to bench Quinn, because I don’t really believe in either of the quarterbacks.
any future browns?
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Why would they sign for a team that isnt contending now or later
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Why
would you root for a team that you have no faith in?
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Money.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
^That was meant as a reply to Slim.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Ha!!
I figured. I wish I got paid money to root for the Browns!!
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
you overestimate edwards’ performance/ability.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
moss went to new england because they had already built a winning, team-first culture. he never would have been brought in prior to the establishment of a very specific team culture, with a very solid core of veteran leaders dedicated to enforcing that culture.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
They brought Moss in because Brady wanted a big time WR. Almost all WR’s out side of wayne and Larry Fitz are douchebags.
talent>charachter
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Talent is useless if you don’t first have a solid team.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
To have a solid team you must have talent
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
I don’t understand this.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
I don’t understand this.
Neither did Daniel Snyder…
see 2003-2004 Washington Redskins
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
oops…wrong reply, but you guys get my meaning. Talent doesn’t mean success.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Example. Moss did nothing for Raiders. He broke the NFL record for TDs the next season for the Pats.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
ANDRE JOHNSON!!!
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
It was a hypothetical situation.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
It's probably an even trade for both
Browns wanted Edwards out and got some value for him. Jets are contenders this year, but they just addressed a big concern – they had no real #2 and no deep threat. Stuckey is basically average, a watered down Northcutt is how I’d describe him.
As a Jet fan, I like this trade. There is a very short list of WR that have scored 16 TDs in one season, and Edwards is only 2 years removed from that. The fact that you’re getting a 2nd or 3rd, plus a 5th makes this a good deal for you. The problem for you is, Mangini may be making those picks. But I think he’ll be fired by the end of the season, so you should be okay. Good luck!
David G - October 7, 2009
Come back in a few weeks and let us know if he has stopped dropping key passes. I’d put about two losses last year on key drops he made. He led the league in drops and wide receivers in drop percentage. Anyway, hope he works out for you guys as we don’t play you this year. Enjoy.
Brownsyup - October 7, 2009
He also dropped those easy catches at Michigan. This as been a problem for him since I’ve heard of Braylon Edwards.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
He dropped a lot of passes in 2007 also. He just scored 16 TDs.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Wow someone said Edwards is 31? And I think Sanchez will be an avg QB at best, week 3 1/2 defenses started to figure him out….so ya.
Can we all agree no more Michigan players ;)
does this open the door for Robiskie?
Red-Right-88 - October 7, 2009
yeah, because it would suck to have Tom Brady on the team.
rolub - October 7, 2009
No we cant I could care less where these kids come from as long as they can play!!
cfields - October 7, 2009
Agreed. Chris Carter was on Sportscenter this morning. The host said that the fans never connected to Edwards because he was from Michigan. Carter snapped back that he was from Ohio and fans don’t give a crap where he came from, they didn’t like Edwards because he has 30-something drops since 2007. And because he was at risk of being suspended and hurting the team.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Only idiots wouldn’t support a Browns player because he went to Michigan. Of course, there are many Browns fans who are idiots.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
If that’s the case, it’s because they’re OSU fans first, and Browns fans second.
rolub - October 7, 2009
+1
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
I'm a Michigan fan.
And a Browns fan who lives in KY and not Ohio. Personally the only time I’ve heard anyone talk about hating Edwards for being from Michigan it’s from him, the talking heads, or anonymous posters on the plain dealer’s site, which well i won’t comment on that.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
This.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
I hated Braylon when he played for michigan. When he stopped wearing yellow and navy, I stopped hating him.
rufio - October 8, 2009
Yellow and navy, is that their colors? And here I’ve always thought it was piss ‘n’ blue.
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
I had actually never heard of that, that’s good. I was just going for anything but what they were actually supposed to be called.
rufio - October 8, 2009
Its Michigan players that are also having a terrible year that are not getting support.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
I don’t remember any Browns fan who were calling for Braylon’s head when he used to be good in 2007.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
Almost a requirement
realmccoy - October 7, 2009
No.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Much Fichigan
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
Muck Fichigan*
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
Wow
that is an early judgement on Sanchez after 1 bad game in one of the toughest places to play in the NFL. He’s a rookie that has a great chance to lead his team to the playoffs, and he has a cannon arm. He will definitely be better than avg., that’s ridiculous. And Edwards is 26 years old, get your facts straight, Red-Wrong-88.
David G - October 7, 2009
It’s early to say what he will be one way or the other. The early returns look promising.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Cannon? Seriously?
kwoog - October 7, 2009
Yeah, From what I’ve seen and read the guy its more of a water-cannon.
Remember super soakers?
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
I do, foundly. Ah, memories.
kwoog - October 7, 2009
“fondly”
kwoog - October 7, 2009
Too bad it isn’t a rocket, laser arm.
Peyton Manning kills me.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Sanchez looks good so far, but he’s a rookie. It could still go either way. Also, his arm isn’t bad, but it isn’t “cannon”.
rufio - October 8, 2009
Chambers is 31 is what I said.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Cancer
It is always a good thing to get rid of a cancer on your team!!! This is going to be a great move in the long run MoMass will def benefit from this, as he will be forced to step his game up and we have seen he is able to do just that!!
cfields - October 7, 2009
If you think MoMass will benifit from us trading Braylon then you are delusional. He was able to get open so much last Sunday because the defense was double-teaming Braylon all game. That won’t happen now with him gone. I doubt you’ll see a game like that from MoMass the rest of this season (not that he won’t still have some good games).
The idea that he can simply “step up his game” because we traded another WR is really quite stupid.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
They didnt need to double team him, the dude cant catch the clap!!! And I am the one who is delusional!!!
cfields - October 7, 2009
But they did double-team him. The defensive players said so after the game.
It’s usually good to use facts when you post.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
I think double team is pretty much misused here. They rotated the safety over towards his side of the field. It’s not quite the same as a double team.
But the point is the same, it helped MoMass get open.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
NFL QBs don’t always know with 100% certainty what the coverages are during live game action, so I am more than 80% sure you don’t know exactly what the Bengals’ safeties assignments were on every play.
rufio - October 8, 2009
Did they double team him on his drop pass??? That hit him right in the numbers!!
cfields - October 7, 2009
That doesn’t refute my point.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
How doesnt it you said they double teamed him and I gave you an example of that just not being the case ( on that play) I bet if you looked at every play he was not double teamed as much as he was double teamed.
cfields - October 7, 2009
No, you didn’t. Just because he dropped a pass which hit him in the numbers doesn’t mean he wasn’t double-teamed on that play (as cols714 said, it was more like they rolled a safety to his side of the field but it’s the same idea).
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Why is it that sports fans in general, but football fans more specifically think that if the players would just try harder or care more they’d be better players? You find this sentiment a lot in football forums.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
I don’t know, but I really, really hate that nonsense. We hear it all the time from idiot Browns fan, that we need to find players who care about being a member of the Browns (as if that’s all it takes to be a good player). I mean, the idea that Massaquoi will magically catch more passes because he wants to try harder now that another WR is gone is just moronic. Most players try their hardest on every single play — it’s talent that wins game, not how much you care.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Yep. It’s not just Browns fans it’s every team’s. Talent and good coaching which I’m beginning to think is pretty damn important. I mean there is no way that teams like the Steelers are able to just draft that much better than the Browns. I think they are also much much better at developing those players, which is where coaching comes in.
Cols714 - October 7, 2009
At least in the past. I am still willing to give Mangini a chance.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Your completely missing the point, without having that cancer on their team it will automatically make him step his game up becuase he will now be our #1 No where did I say he will try harder, maybe you should spend as much time reading the posts as you do trying to criticize.
cfields - October 7, 2009
How will he step up his game because he’s the #1 receiver?
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Well lets see being pretty non existant in the first three games, just mop up time. Then finally getting the responsibilty put on him last week to be our number two guy, now he will get the bulk of the looks he will either sink or swim ( fail or succeed) fall back or step up to the challenge.
cfields - October 7, 2009
That doesn’t explain anything. He was going to be the #2 receiver the rest of the season anyways after his performance this weekend, so it’s not like he’s going to ge more playing time with Braylon gone. Losing Braylon is just going to make defenses focus on him now and reduce the open looks he had.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
or make him step it up and run his routes more precise to be able to get open more, or he could just do like Braylon and acceot it and not focus and drop every on target pass that is thrown your way
cfields - October 7, 2009
OK, that makes a lot of sense. MoMass wasn’t running his routes very precise when he was the #2 receiver, but now that he’s the #1 receiver he’s going to STEP UP and runs his routes really precise so he can get more open. Because everyone tries harder when they’re the #1 receiver they they do if they’re the #2 or #3 receiver.
And you wonder why I called your comments moronic.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
have you played football you twit??? Yes if you are the main man you will be more focused guaranteed, that is if you wanna get some balls thrown your way. I am sorry for arguing with you, you obviously have no true expierence or you would understand.
cfields - October 7, 2009
Wow.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
experience playing football means nothing to this argument. brad is dead-on once again. guys at that level don’t all of the sudden start “trying harder”, that’s nonsense. they work their tails off every play to try and improve and help the team win.
and if we’re talking football experience, how many former pro-bowlers are getting on DBN and commenting about Braylon Edwards? that is a pointless argument.
Dawg Nuts - October 7, 2009
Trying harder and being more focused are completely diff things!!! I have never seen a man jock another man as bad as you do him!!! You two go make out and leave the talk to the grown ups!!
cfields - October 7, 2009
feel better now?
Dawg Nuts - October 7, 2009
suprisingly I do!! Thank you for asking
cfields - October 7, 2009
So, what exactly is the difference between trying harder and being more focused?
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
probably the best thing we could do would be let this one go…
Dawg Nuts - October 7, 2009
Think Randy Moss w/ Chris Carter then without Chris Carter. Then with Tom Brady way way more focused on what he is doing. Mo mass is def not Moss and the scenario is different but having more responsibility and being “the man” will (or should hopefully) make him play smarter.
cfields - October 7, 2009
That makes absolutely no sense. Players don’t “play smarter” when they are the #1 target. At least, 99.9% of them don’t.
You don’t think MoMass was focused when he was the #3 or #4 guy, trying to show the coaching staff that he deserved more playing time? Do you think he says “oh, now I’m the #1 man, now I’m going to really focus and play smarter”. Of course not.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
It makes perfect sense!!! No I dont think MoMass played with the same drive he will now, playing our number 1 believe that or not I dont really care its human nature if you arent relied upon to be in that role you wont reach your full potential
cfields - October 8, 2009
This is why people shouldn’t watch ESPN.
Brad D - October 10, 2009
huh
Check his stats here Moss in Minn. was a pretty consistent player except for his last year.
When Carter left Moss’s receptions went up but he had already proven himself as a stud receiver, MegaMass has not. That’s not to say that he won’t but being the Man didn’t make him player smarter it just got more balls his way because their wasn’t a hall famer on the other side to throw to.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
and how did he get more balls thrown his way if he was the only threat on the team?? He had to be more focused run his routes to perfection the timing between him and culpepper had to be there if not just double or triple team him and take any chance at all of him getting the ball which they did towards the end and he was totally unfocused at Oakland!!!
cfields - October 8, 2009
No
He was and is talented.
Villeslgr - October 8, 2009
was braylon focused as the “main man”?
you lose.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
exactly my point
cfields - October 8, 2009
not at all your point, actually. your argument stinks.
DontCallMeJoey - October 8, 2009
who said he is going to magically catch more passes moron???? If you would read and not make ignorant assumptions you would be much better off.
cfields - October 7, 2009
Gary Benz at TheClevelandFan.com has a good wrap-up of the trade.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Great quote.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Being a Die Hard Cub fan, and even before reading the whole article, all I could see was Milton Bradley. A wonderful talent at times but a pain in the ass most of the time.
I like the move.It stinks that Edwards really didn’t pan out. However I think there is some validity to the ESPN article that Braylon never really wanted to be in Cleveland in the first place.
This team is in dire need of depth. Stucky not a star by any means could be a solid 2, and the draft picks could bring some value.
Edwards had to go, have fun in New York Braylon, the media will love you until you drop one of the golden boys balls in the endzone.
Grockcubs - October 7, 2009
Outstanding article. I don’t disagree with anything in it.
drjeo - October 7, 2009
This will make the upcoming game against Buffalo really interesting to see what the immediate impact of no Edwards will have on our passing game.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
I’ve got to say, I’m glad we don’t have to watch the Drop Bowl back and forth with T. O. on the other side.
T.O. has B.O.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
We will get to see Captain Checkdown in action.
(no, not Brady Quinn… the other Captain Checkdown)
rolub - October 7, 2009
Hahaha! Thank so much for that, just made my day.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
I haven't been able to see all the games this year
But has Cribbs been playing on special teams beyond returning kicks? If so adding Trusnik can benefit by allowing Cribbs more offensive reps without forcing him to be a quality receiver. If we can have Cribbs run some plays on offense and return kicks that another bonus from the trade.
Obviously no one we received will replace Edwards’s talent level and MegaMass will see some extra coverage but really that would more than likely have happened next year anyway.
My questions on offense for this year become
do we stick with anderson for the rest of the year
if so, do we try and trade quinn for a running back or any other players? (i don’t know if we would be able to get a better receiver than what we already have)
So the questions for me on offense for next year become
will we be drafting one of the top QBs next year,
who is our running back next year
will we get a top tier receiver
I’m sure there are others but for me these are top of mind right now
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
I believe the Cincy game was the first game I saw Cribbs on the coverage units. As much as I’d like Cribbs to pan out as a big part of the offense, he looks much better getting about 10 snaps with the offense and playing on the coverage unit and returning kicks.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
I agree, I would rather Cribbs play all special teams downs and only a handful of plays on offense.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Yes. I think Cribbs has shown in the first few gams that he’s just not a starting WR. He should get a few snaps on end arounds and short passes along with a few trick plays but otherwise be used on special teams.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
It would be nice if for once the plays with Cribbs weren’t so terribly predictable. I’d like to see him set up as a RB, and work his way out for a pass one time so that the next time the defense would be less certain of how he was going to be used.
And I keep wondering if they’re ever gonna let him pass. I don’t know if he was really just a scrambler in college, but I keep thinking there has to be a way that he can take a hand-off or pitch and then find a TE sneaking into the end zone.
I guess I can dream.
JustBob - October 7, 2009
i really want to see cribbs line up a RB some…especially w/ davis on the shelf and jamal lame.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
I can get behind this.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
I asked the same exact question to my buddy this morning because I had missed the 2nd half of the opener and all of the Broncos game. as DD notes above, Cribbs was not on the coverage unit while he was taking multiple snaps on offense. Now that he’s not playing with the first unit, the cincy game was the first that he’s been in on ST coverage.
rolub - October 7, 2009
I wasn't advocating a starting position
More of the wildcat type thing or maybe in a multiple receiver set.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Best Special Teams in the NFL
Adding another nice special teams player – do the Browns now have the best special teams around?
JB-Cleve - October 7, 2009
Once Dawson comes back, this might be true.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
What good are special teams though
if you can’t move the ball on O or stop teams on D? I guess it’s good that you get a lot of return opportunities after giving up TDs.
David G - October 7, 2009
Don’t underrate special teams- 1/3 of the game, at least.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
I hate trading talented players because they have off the field issues. What a terrible, terrible idea. I don’t care about what return we have or whatever, losing Braylon makes us a worse team.
Brad D - October 7, 2009
Generally, I agree with you. But two things make me ok with this:
1.) Edwards’ issues were about to cross a line to a point where he was going to miss games, hurting his value and the team. Whether personal foul penalties or suspensions or dividing the locker room.
2.) Edwards would make the 2009 team better, but likely would be allowed to walk after the year. And this trade, then, helps the 2010 team by leaps and bounds over, well, nothing.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
If his assult thingy got him into any trouble, it would be one game at the most. I doubt it will be anything. He is a first time offender and the Commish usually goes light on those guys. You don’t trade a talent like Edwards, even if he isn’t playing well right now, because of a possible one game suspension.
Not to sound like a broken record, but the Browns could keep him as long as they wanted. If there is no cap this offseason, BE is a restricted FA and we gets picks if anyone signs him. The following year, we still have the tag. The teams hold all the cards in player movement in the NFL. Just ask new 49er Crabtree.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
This all depends upon whether charges are filed. He punched someone in the face. He could be facing jail time.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Highly, highly, highly unlikely.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
If that’s true, I feel sorry for the people of Cleveland. Where I live, people who punch people in the face get charged with battery and go to jail.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
I doubt that. Are you honestly saying that every time someone punches someone else in the face that person gets sent to jail? There must be some crowded jails where you live.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
When the punch results in a cut and when there’s multiple witnesses, the fucker that threw the punch is going to jail.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
either you live somewhere without a jail-space problem, somewhere outside the US, or I think you are confused.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
i work in criminal justice, and that is not even close to being accurate.
Dawg Nuts - October 7, 2009
I’m glad someone else is backing me on this- I was beginning to worry that criminal law has changed a lot since last year when I was studying for the bar.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
sarcasmdave - October 8, 2009
this is also accurate
Ryan Kelsey - October 8, 2009
Law school sucks. I’ve seen many a student in a bar with a Torts book.
Brad D - October 10, 2009
If in Cincinnati between 2005-08, that might have been me.
Ryan Kelsey - October 10, 2009
No, this was in Akron.
Brad D - October 10, 2009
ooo. know a few Akron 2Ls currently- my best friend and my brother’s girlfriend.
Ryan Kelsey - October 10, 2009
If by jail
You mean getting arrested that night and having to sit for a bit, well yeah most people would end up in jail.
Very few people will end up getting sentenced to prison for an assault outside of a club which results in minimal injury.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
well stated, totally agree
Dawg Nuts - October 8, 2009
Jail time for a battery, where arrest wasn’t immediate and charges may not even be pressed by the victim seems very rare, in any state. Additionally, Edwards has the money behind him to get some very good representation. I’d think a plea to a minor misdemeanor, a fine and a suspended sentence- at most.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
I guess that’s where I went wrong, I didn’t have enough money to buy my way out of it.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
I agree that a 1 game suspension was as much as would have came from the Sunday night episode. But he also had the problem on the field and Mortensen has said most if not all of the grievance issues came from him. There are a lot of issues there.
There seems to be some legit confusion on the contract situation for Edwards and the NFL rules in general. I know the Browns could have kept him if they wanted, but the bottom line is they didn’t want, especially for the cap hit and what we’d have to pay him. Nobody was going to give us the franchise tag-trade value. And if this was about the same as the trade the Giants offered a couple months ago- before 4 more sup-par games from Edwards, before the majority of his off the field issues- what makes you think we were getting more for him at any point in the future?
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
My point is, if we got about the same trade as the Giants offered (which I disagree with), and his value was as low as it could get, why not see if he could get going again?
After all, a lot of people were saying that Edwards does better with DA than Quinn, so shouldn’t his value go up? Granted its betting on the come, but I personally think that if he would rebounded, we get better value in return.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
There is a chance that he could have looked even worse in the next few weeks especially with his attitude. I mean it is just as possible, given the recent past, that Edward’s trade value could have ended up even less after a few weeks rather than more. I mean he has looked pretty bad this season and looked his worse this last game in which Anderson started. I can’t see where there was a lot of upside potential here given all the facts.
Brownsyup - October 7, 2009
Yes it is possible, but i find it hard to believe that he could get worse.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
As mentioned below
The deadline is coming up. No decision has been made on any suspension yet. We have two games before the deadline, if he is given a game suspension there is not really any chance that things could get better because he won’t have a chance to show anything before the deadline.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
So we don’t trade him this season. Where is the rush?
Once again, this isn’t CC Sabathia.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
The rush
As I see it, is created because I just don’t believe that Mangini wanted Edwards to be a Brown anymore. I think he didn’t want Edwards to receive another penny of salary money from the team. Whether or not that is a smart decision or is something that can be debated on the board, however, if as i feel, that is the case than the game becomes trying to get what you can for Edwards and not a game of hoping he improves.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
If he traded him because he didn’t want him on the team, then there better be a damn good reason that we havent heard yet.
Plenty of coaches have coached players they hate.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
The Team Is 0-4
Why keep a guy like that around?
It’s not like he’s going to put the team on his back and lead them to the Playoffs.
The draft choices can (in theory) help fill the many holes that this team has.
A prima donna receiver is a luxury that the Browns do not need at this point.
Pruitt - October 7, 2009
I’m just happy to see someone spell “prima donna” correctly. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen someone call an athlete a “premadonna”, as if they were born before Madonna.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
LOL
steelerstyle - October 8, 2009
The NFL trade deadline is October 20. We don’t have “a few weeks” to see if he sorts things out.
woodsmeister - October 7, 2009
But he didn’t do better in a game and a half with DA. He also has more off the field problems and they are mounting. I’d be afraid that his value was not as low as it could get- that it could go much lower.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
The team could keep him
But it had become obvious that was becoming less likely to happen. Obviously anything is possible but when faced with a situation sometimes you have to be proactive and make a decision and not just sit around waiting for things to sort themselves out.
Villeslgr - October 7, 2009
Agreed – it’s pretty upsetting to see Braylon gone. I’m not sure what the best play is on this but I can understand the benefits of holding on to pouty/marginally troubled receivers and riding out their personal problems.
joeee - October 7, 2009
Denver is now happy they kept Marshall. Same with Cincy and OchoCinco. For all the crap he took, Dallas looks like that passing game misses TO.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Cinci is also glad they didn’t overpay for Houshmanzadeh.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Championship!
Housh is a mouthy, pony-tailed, over-rated version of Wes Welker. Without the YAC possibilties.
Good luck with all that Seattle.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
There was a good chance we were going to lose him for nothing in the free agency, and he hasn’t been productive this season, at least this way we get some kind of value back for him.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
This wasn’t C.C Sabathia.
Very different situation.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Whoah
I think everyone should chill!
I wasn’t really in favour of this move because as I see it, Braylon is one of our few, naturally gifted playmakers. I didn’t want to see the guy go because of what he could do if our team got good.
But the facts in this case are that, be it the system, the coaches, the QB or his plays, he wasn’t getting it done. And he wasn’t getting it done last season either, despite making outlandish promises on all the TDs he would catch.
So any value he has is based on his playmaking attributes and what he did in 2007. Two years is a long time in football. We were never going to get an impact player for him. We haven’t drafted any impact players, we haven’t picked up any in free agency and we havent’ traded for any. This is a move for the longer-term and the thing about long-term moves is that you usually only see the benefits in the longer term.
So yeah, chill and take it for what it is!
Terrible Terry Tate - October 7, 2009
I think most people here are ok with the trade. Besides, actually this year is taking on some interesting turns. I’m really looking forward to seeing Mack, Momass, Robiskie, Harrison and Jennings get some serious playing time. There is potential there for us to build a strong nucleus of young, hardworking, talented, players who really want playing time to show what they can do, know their roles and will work together as a team. Of course I could be wrong…and sure, we’ll take some lumps, but now it truly looks like we’re committed to building for the future.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Who is this Robiskie fellow that you speak of?
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Terry Robiskie DUHH!!
Brownie's Year - October 7, 2009
Pro football is full of criminal types, but this guy is a dumb criminal with stone hands. Things are bad enough without his punk crap creating additional distractions.
elsandito - October 7, 2009
I wouldn’t go so far as to label him a ‘criminal’ after one incident, but something tells me most of the players on the team aren’t exactly devastated he’s gone.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
How many banks do you have to rob to be a bank robber?? So how many 130 pound men do you have to bully and punch in the eye to be a criminal?
cfields - October 7, 2009
There are PLENTY of people who have started fights who aren’t criminals…and comparing that to a ‘bank robbery’ isn’t even close.
Besides, this is just one more thing in a long line of problems with BE. It’s the attitude, not the ‘criminal,’ that had to go.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
I’ll bet you that lil’ dude started it anyways. Not many people just run up and hit someone without a motive. And because dude is small, he’s crying victim.
Brownie's Year - October 7, 2009
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2009/10/wknr_contributor_sabrina_parr.html
Sounds like Edwards overheard him say something about Edwards/the Browns. Edwards said “you would be nothing without LeBron”. Guy said something back. Edwards punched him.
Sabrina makes it sound like Edwards is a very sensitive and thinks very highly of himself.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Braylon was half right. The guy IS nothing even with Lebron.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Hell yeah. I knew dude was talking shit, and I haven’t even been following this thing. Thx for the link.
The lesson is…..Don’t run your mouth if you can’t back it up. Especially if you’re an Oompa-Loompa.
Brownie's Year - October 7, 2009
I guess at this point in time the specifics of what happened don’t really mean sh*t. It’s the Jets problem now…
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Though, we need to cheer for Braylon. More catches = better pick.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
He’s a wannabe badass, hanging around low lifes. And even if this guy insulted his mama, BE is allowed to smile and keep walking. And if he thought anything about his team and avoiding distractions, he would have kept walking.
elsandito - October 7, 2009
i just got home from school and found out about this. only thing i could think of was, “wow”. it definitely surprised me, but i think it was a good move in the long run.
emily522 - October 7, 2009
How much faith would you have to have to spend $80 on this?
Jets Jersey
Move mountains baby… move mountains.
Brownsyup - October 7, 2009
It Just Gets Uglier
I agree with those who called Edwards a gifted schmuck. Obviously, he’s more concerned with drama than performance. As far as any true Browns fan is concerned, he can suck it.
But that’s not what this is about. This about making a deal. It’s not about personalities. It’s strictly business.
And it is in the business of winning games where the uppity-ups consistently fail.
This is a bad trade. Plain and simple.
oddjobdrummer - October 7, 2009
I just dont see it that way. We are 0-4 why not get our rookies in there why not get what we can get for him now (like we should have done with Brady!!!) We get a decent possession reciever, a special teams ace and more draft picks to build for the future, and we get a cry baby pre madonna without the talent to go with the attitude off our team.
cfields - October 7, 2009
We have enough Special Teams aces. Costanzo, Lawson, Maiva, Francies, Ventrone and those guys are very easy to find. Lets work on Offense.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Every NFL team KNEW what the position the Browns were in with Braylon. They were well aware that he was unhappy here and was leaving regardless, so to expect a better deal from anyone else would be foolish. I bet those phone lines weren’t exactly ringing off the hook, just as they weren’t last year…BEFORE this assault thing, so why expect anything better at this point?
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
Sometimes I’m glad I moved away from Ohio. You all are crazy, this move is what the Browns HAD to do. This guy was a cancer, unproductive, and a bad influence on young talented players. Haven’t we seen enough in the past 10 years with the crap in the Cleveland Locker room? I’m not Mangini’s biggest fan, but in order for the franchise to right the ship, we have to get rid of the crap that put us on this path of destruction. I guess we can keep the loosers, continue to lose, and complain about why Lerner moved the team to a different city. It was the right move, and I’m finally proud to be a Browns fan, they did the right thing for once, and I don’t care if Edwards goes on to be a HOF’er.
Travis B - October 7, 2009
How was he a cancer? How was he a bad influence? He did not demand a trade, so why did he not want to be here?
You turn a bad team around by keeping talented players.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Fuck. You can find guys like stuckey and that no-name practically off the street. You cant find talent like Braylon off the street.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Stuckey is pretty solid. Not Braylon’s level of talent, but definitely “not off the street” caliber.
rufio - October 8, 2009
You can find guys like stuckey and that no-name practically off the street.
That is absolutely not true. Stuckey is a #2 WR on a team that is turning out to be much, much better than anticipated.
You cant find talent like Braylon off the street.
What good is talent if you’re not willing to do the things necessary to show it for your team.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
I’ll take less talented/more disciplined/better attitude/team player every time.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
If the players are close to equal on talent, then by all means you take the better person.
But when your not even in the same realm of talent, you dont.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
I Think You're Over Rating Edwards
He didn’t help this team last year and he sure as hell wasn’t doing anything this year.
Maybe he’ll be a good fit in New York. But at the end of the day, who cares?
He’s out of Cleveland, and not heading to a Pro Bowl again any time soon.
Pruitt - October 7, 2009
I wouldnt be surprised if he did next year
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
For the record, the idea that Braylon Edwards is a free agent and worthless to the team after the season is extremely inaccurate.
Given the uncapped year, Braylon Edwards would be a restricted free agent next year and if the Browns had wanted to keep him, they could have put a 1st and 3rd round tender on him relatively cheaply. In addition, they could have franchised him with one of the 3 franchise tags that each team will have.
Chances of the uncapped rules not coming into effect next year are less than 2%. I’d be shocked if a deal got done at this point.
math_geek - October 7, 2009
also, I really don’t see how this makes the Browns any better long or short term. Edwards was a malcontent, but half the team seems to be and he was still one of the 5 best players on the team.
math_geek - October 7, 2009
Who are the other half of the team that are ‘malcontents?’
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
perhaps that’s just a rumor… but there certainly has been a lot of talking about the relationship between Mangini and the Browns players, and it hasn’t been positive.
All rumors? Perhaps, but where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire. If the players had issues with Mangini, few of them are likely to go out and say it.
math_geek - October 7, 2009
Not sure what you are talking about. He butted heads with Winslow, Rogers, and Edwards. Rogers is the only one that is still there and he has shut up and played like the beast he is.
What are the other rumors? The water bottle thing? Edwards. The grievances? Edwards (at least according to Chris Idiot Mortenson). The bus trip? Nobody really cares that much.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
that may be true, but it’s only the big name players that are going to speak up anyway, bigger players will get to go to another team, smaller players are afraid of losing their job
math_geek - October 7, 2009
Sorry, don’t buy it. Mortensen is a parrot for NFL head coaches. The guy is worthless. Now if Schefter or Glazer said this, I would give it more credence. But this is the first I have heard anything about Edwards filing the complaints. I have a hard time believing that Edwards is the ONLY player with an axe to grind.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Yeah, that’s why I made sure to “credit” Mort. I think he is awful and I take anything he says with a couple pounds of salt. But it seems like the most ridiculous and publicized issues have been with Edwards.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
I guess I see a ‘malcontent’ as someone like T.O., someone who is going to be unhappy and be a cancer no matter what unless they are allowed to do what they want. You can disagree with and not like a coach, that’s fine…but it seems like most of the players now are willing to look beyond that and just play.
johnnyphoenix - October 7, 2009
But how hard are they willing to play, that’s the question. I may be classifying a malcontent differently, as someone who is really not putting the proper effort into team success, but I originally used the word. You’d be a better judge than me as to how much effort the Browns have put in, but from what I’ve seen, it’s not much.
math_geek - October 7, 2009
they played pretty darn hard on sunday
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
That’s the thing- they wanted to move him and it seems clear that they’ve wanted to move him for some time. His value continues to go down- why keep holding onto a sinking ship? Nobody is giving up a 1st and 3rd for him.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
missed the Jerry Jones lottery?
I think the bigger thing is Mangini’s tendency to pick up backups and average/below average starters rather than more/better draft picks. It’s extremely unorthodox, so it’s hard to find real concrete evidence that suggests it’s a bad idea — but still, These are the kinds of players that can be added fairly cheaply in the offseason by a sollid personnel department. Draft picks would help the rebuilding far better. Are you really telling be you couldn’t get a 2nd + for Braylon Edwards? We’ll never know, but if the Ravens had gotten him for a 2nd I’d be pretty excited.
math_geek - October 7, 2009
3rd that could be a 2nd and a 5th is what we got- plus two players.
Mangini obviously likes vets, especially those that he knows over unknown pics.
Still, he is seems to be doing both and this deal seems very similar to the one that the Giants offered during the draft, reportedly. Maybe you would have loved giving up more, but it didn’t seem like anyone in the NFL agreed.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
well, you do have to have enough people to field a 53-man…
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
I am hoping this tendency starts to go away in the coming years, once Mangini fills the roster with quality, team-first guys who can show young guys how to win, mentor them, etc.
I think it is pretty clear we can’t win with career backups. I don’t mind it right now, but sooner or later we will have to get some upper-echelon talent.
rufio - October 8, 2009
To me this move seems to indicate that the Browns ownership believes in Mangini and is going to give him time to make this his team. Mangini got rid of a player that did not fit into his vision for the future of the team and replaced him with players that will be “his guys.”
I had wanted to see Braylon make some contributions to the team this year and I was optimistic that he would actually do so. However I like this type of move for our 0-4 team that needs many pieces for the future. I’ll just need to find something to do with my number 17 jersey.
Let’s give this thing some time.
dvbb - October 7, 2009
Enough of Edwards. Done is done.
Is there anyone here who has watched Stuckey play? I’d like to know if he’s at least a viable threat. Yeah, I know he was a starter, but are we talking true starter calibre or Steptoe starter caliber.
JustBob - October 7, 2009
Solid #3. Could develop into a #2, but not a #1. He’s undersized and not particularly fast, but he’s a precise route runner with good to excellent hands.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Agree with this assessment. I have a number of Jets fan friends here in NYC, they all thought Stuckey was developing into a solid number 2. Most are not happy with the trade, they think Braylon is a jackass.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
This makes me more comfortable (that they think he is a jackass).
rufio - October 8, 2009
i said in the offseason and continue to believe that the greatest value that certain players offer to the browns is as trade bait. in my opinion, that is the case with edwards. he may be a great talent (i’m not sure that’s true), but acquiring 4 players for him is nothing to sneeze at. and acquiring 4 players in return for 12 games of edwards, potentially, makes it even better. not to mention that 2 of those players aren’t on the team yet.
it’s hard to accept, but for a bad team, talented players are often maximized as trade pieces that bring additional assets to the table. i happen to think this is currently the case with shaun rogers. to me, he should be traded before 10/20.
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
As much as I love Rogers, I agree. As I’ve said before, he’ll be done before we’re ready to win, and a trade now could net a hell of a lot in return.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Maybe Mangenie will grant another wish for the Jets and give Shaun Rogers for a special teamer, Thomas Jones and a 6th rounder.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
that’s just stupid
DontCallMeJoey - October 7, 2009
I’m pretty sure it’s just a joke.
I hope.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
Im just saying thats something Mangenie will do. I would be mad but not surprised to see it happen.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
OK, he’s not stupid. He’s not going to trade our best defensive player for an old running back.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
As for Shaun Rogers, I am cool with trading him as long as the package is good.
In other words, not what we got back for Edwards.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
Of course we wouldn’t want what we got back for Edwards. Sean Rogers is far more valuable than Edwards.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Bart Scott or a first round pick are about the only two things I’d approve of for Shaun Rogers.
Simmsinns - October 7, 2009
Bart Scott is over-rated.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Mangini: Hey Rex, we still have a talented person on our team. Are you interested in Shaun Rogers?
Ryan: Yea, what do you want for him?
Mangini: How about a first rounder?
Ryan: I can give you something better. Ive got this receiver named Wallace Wright, and he knows your system. Ive also got a running back Danny Woodhead who did great in the preseason. I’ll give you both and even a 6th round draft pick.
Mangini: Tempting, but…
Ryan: What if I throw in special teamers Brad Smith and-
Mangini: DONE!!!!
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
I’ll give you Brady Quinn for the assistant trainer.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
The assistant Special teams trainer
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Hey, if you can acquire a guy named Brad Smith you jump at that chance. With a name like that he must be really awesome!
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Missouri grad
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Also a Y-town native.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Your name?
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Come on
Woodhead isn’t even on the team he’s on the practice squad. But if he was, i’d make that deal in less than half a heartbeat.
Come on!!!!
Villeslgr - October 8, 2009
No thank you on the Bart Scott. I wouldn’t mind getting Revis.
rufio - October 8, 2009
Revis and Rhodes would be really nice to add.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
I stand corrected, I should have said Revis! (I got Scott confused with Suggs.)
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
Suggs is really good.
rufio - October 8, 2009
I wouldnt complain about getting Scott though. He probably would be our best Linebacker
TheRealSlimShady - October 8, 2009
D’Qwell Jackson is better than Bart Scott.
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
He would help us, but I don’t think he would be our best. He doesn’t play like any of our guys, though, so its kinda hard to compare him to DQ or even Wimbley (who is having a good year, all things considered)
rufio - October 8, 2009
Bernie19Kosar
Your right, we should subscribe to the Jerry Jones method of building a team, or the Dan Schneider way of building with Talent first!! Teams win Championships not players, if you can’t be a team player, you don’t belong. T.O. is a freak of talent, but takes teams to the tank. I’ll take a roster full of untalented guys willing to give everything they have on every snap over a bunch of Talented Pre-Madonas that are there to look good and collect a check. Take a look at the division and show me a team of stars….Football is built on a team concept, and a desire to succeed. Edwards is a talented player, and I hope NY works for him, but it certainly wasn’t working in Cleveland. If he truly cared about the team, he would learn how to do his job, and catch the ball.
Travis B - October 7, 2009
So what was 2007? I guess he stopped caring about the team?
Your missing my point on the rest of it. Yes I want guys that go all out and bust their ass. I just want talented players. Sometimes those two things don’t mix. I would rather side with talent.
Bernie19Kosar - October 7, 2009
That’s so funny — especially considering I just made this comment above.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
So when are we gonna trade Joe Thomas. We could get some serious draft picks for him.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Joe Thomas, unlike Braylon, actually backs up the hype and is worth investing in. Not even comparable or worth making a joke about.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
Yea, but you get what Im saying though, right?
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
I get what you are saying and I think you are way off base. A LT that is actually performing at an all-pro level will not get traded by any regime in the NFL including this one. You are overreacting to them trading a malcontent “star” who has not been productive.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
No, I don’t. Please stop the “we’re gonna trade all of our good players” whining.
Buckeye Brad - October 7, 2009
Im just saying that is the direction we’ve been going in.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
Maybe, but there’s also a big difference between trading a “good player” who has been nothing but a distraction and a great player who leaves everything on the field and works to play to his full potential.
roar888 - October 8, 2009
If Braylon has been NOTHING BUT a distraction no one would have wanted him
TheRealSlimShady - October 8, 2009
When Thomas starts driving around Cleveland at 120 mph punching people in the face? When he starts skipping practices, showing up late for meetings, and bitching that the fans hate him because he’s from Wisconsin?
Joe Thomas is not Braylon Edwards. Joe Thomas is the type of team first guy that we’re looking for.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Joe Thomas has far to much value, he’s also I big Cavs fan, so we know he’s never going anywhere! ;)
I actually went to a Cavs game and walked past him after watching warm-ups, he was going to his row 3 seat with his wife. At a distance I thought, how the hell is such a big guy land that girl? Then as he walked down my cousins quickly pointed out, “Dude, that Joe f***ing Thomas!”
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
So we should make a team of just Cavs fans?
TheRealSlimShady - October 8, 2009
this is getting old.
Ryan Kelsey - October 8, 2009
Braylon was much more likely to make a pro bowl than any of the draft picks and the no names we aquired.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
And so is Michael Crabtree. Does that mean that we should have drafted him?
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
Newsflash: Braylonwas not making the Pro Bowl this year, THE LAST YEAR LEFT ON HIS CONTRACT WITH THE BROWNS.
Roger Dorn - October 7, 2009
But on a below average team 4 decent players are better than one that has a chance of being very good.
Ryan Kelsey - October 7, 2009
Stuckey is decent, not the other guy though. Its too early to call our draft picks decent, especially when we dont know who they are.
TheRealSlimShady - October 7, 2009
This logic means that no draft pick is ever a good thing no matter how high because it could be a bust. I think that is very faulty logic when talking about value in a trade. Draft picks have value. Counting them for nothing is just bad reasoning.
Brownsyup - October 8, 2009
It’s actually terrible logic, and would advocate trading away all draft picks for “proven” players.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
It worked for awhile for George Allen back in the day.
woodsmeister - October 8, 2009
Is that a fact?
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
^ Once again, meant as a reply to Slim.
golanbatrac - October 7, 2009
I am really disappointed Braylon didn’t work out for us. He is a tantalizing player with a whole ton of potential who could really just be a dominant WR.
Unfortunately, he hasn’t done much with all of that potential, and he doesn’t sound like he will mature in time to have a really productive career.
I probably would have kept giving him chances, so I am glad I am not in charge (this time), because I think dealing him was the right move, even though I’m not especially happy about it.
Unless Braylon really wasn’t trying in the first 4 games (which would have been a stupid move on his part) or Daboll suddenly turns into a genius, it could be a long year for our offense.
rufio - October 8, 2009
PArt of me wonders if Braylon was giving his full effort. Was he playing just hard enough to be wanted by other teams, but not get the franchise tag from the Browns?
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
I absolutely think that Braylon was not giving his best effort. Look at Cliff Lee? He was terrible for the Indians this year. He gets traded and for the first 4 or 5 games he is an ace. I think athletes dog it all the time if they are unhappy unless they are unusually professional. There are certain players I’d never expect that kind of thing from. Braylon is not one of them. I guess we’ll know more by his performance in New York.
Brownsyup - October 8, 2009
Cliff was actually terrific for the Indians this year outside of his first start against Texas. His W/L record doesn’t paint the whole picture.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
What Roger said. I have no idea why you think Cliff Lee was terrible with the Indians; he was great after his first couple bad starts. You also have to consider the fact that he was traded to a much weaker league and facing lineups without a DH, so his pitching stats are naturally going to rise anyways.
Actually, though, you are wrong about his numbers being better with the Phillies — they weren’t. His ERA was better with the Indians (3.14 v. 3.39).
Buckeye Brad - October 8, 2009
Roger and Brad already answered this but, good Lord man, how can you Lee was terrible for the Indians this year? Between this and Rocland naming names up thread I’m wondering if anyone here looks up the actual numbers.
Brad D - October 10, 2009
To be quite honest with you, I doubt Edwards is that savvy.
Bernie19Kosar - October 8, 2009
Unless Braylon really wasn’t trying in the first 4 games (which would have been a stupid move on his part) or Daboll suddenly turns into a genius, it could be a long year for our offense.
Rubio, I agree, but it was going to be a long year for our offense regardless. That is why this move is a good one, it is time to rebuild, and have the possibility of being a solid team in the near future instead of keeping players that don’t want to be around, and continuing the coaching carousel that forces us to purge the team every 3 years. We need some consistency, the talent will come.
Travis B - October 8, 2009
Akron Beacon is reporting that if Braylon performs well we’ll actually get a #2 pick from the Jets. Now I have a reason to root for Braylon. Hope he covers his hands and chest in pine tar. Anyone else hear this?
Brownsyup - October 8, 2009
The rumor is 75 catches.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
That’s a lot of votes, we must have a lot of lurkers.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
Or SlimShady has more than two accounts.
golanbatrac - October 8, 2009
I’ve always imagined that situation a little something like this:
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
In BQiB’s head: “C’mon fellas, lets show DBN how it’s down! Ready? On three… BREAK!”
(Just a little mild humor, I couldn’t resist to use that picture again.)
Simmsinns - October 8, 2009
Now just imagine them all as FBs.
JustBob - October 8, 2009
The thought entered my mind, but Slim Shady wouldn’t have voted for Yes so many times.
Roger Dorn - October 8, 2009
I have 3.
TheRealSlimShady - October 8, 2009
flag
Ryan Kelsey - October 8, 2009
How does it bother you! I can go out and make 50 and you wouldnt know about it unless I told you! But of course since im doing it, it must be bad.
TheRealSlimShady - October 8, 2009
Relax, kid. I think he — along with the rest of us — was annoyed by your constant replying to yourself.
Buckeye Brad - October 8, 2009
If by constant you mean twice.
TheRealSlimShady - October 8, 2009
You replied to yourself?
Did you have to log in, log out, log in again, then log out again, then log in again?
Villeslgr - October 9, 2009
And it ruins conversation. blogs like this can be a great community to talk sports, but when you have the same person using 2 or 3 different names, it really frustrates the dialogue. Not to mention, if you actually did use 3 different names to vote in this poll 3 different times, it skews the results.
It is really annoying and there is no reason for it.
Ryan Kelsey - October 8, 2009
1. I did it twice.
2. Tons of people vote on the poles, and 1 or 2 wouldnt scure the results.
3. I use TRSS on the computer, BQiB on my iPod, and I only posted once with my third account here and I forgot the password.
TheRealSlimShady - October 9, 2009
That you even have three tells me all I need to know.
Brad D - October 10, 2009
Why does it even matter
TheRealSlimShady - October 10, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.