NFL Draft: WVU’s Bruce Irvin to visit Cleveland Browns
March 23, 2012In support of Trent Richardson to the Browns
March 23, 2012Buried at the bottom of a Peter King Monday Morning QB column, (which I never would have seen without Cleveland Frowns’ post today) comes this about the Rams’ trade with Washington-
“But according to Rams GM Les Snead, that’s not the whole story. He confirmed to me Sunday what I’d heard the night the trade broke. Snead said he told all teams interested on March 8 that he was going to have the trade done by the end of that day, and he was going to ask each team to give its best offer for the trade. At that point, he said, after listening to all the proposals, he was going to take the best offer — unless the offer was not anywhere near what the Rams wanted for the pick.
Those were the rules, Snead said Sunday, that he made clear to each team. Snead asked for everyone’s best offer in individual phone calls. It’s unclear what Cleveland’s offer was, but Washington offered three first-round picks and one second-round pick. That offer, Snead said, was better than Cleveland’s offer. So he told Washington officials that they’d won the bidding and told the Browns they’d lost. At that point, Snead said, Cleveland tried to make another offer, and Snead said the window was closed; the Rams were taking Washington’s offer.”
Read the whole piece. It may be a little “he said, she said” but someone is most certainly not being honest about the exchange.
59 Comments
Given our order in the draft, it is impossible that the offer we made, if it is truly what Holmgren said it was, could have been worse than Washington’s offer.
So, one of the following is true:
1. The Rams (Snead) lied and took Washington’s offer despite a better offer from Cleveland due to a “connection” he had with the Redskins.
2. Holmgren lied and never actually made an offer that corresponds, in terms of quality, with the Redskins’ offer.
Now, think of it this way: if you’re the Rams, unless its a blood relative of yours or someone from the Redskins has a gun to your head, why would you ever not take something better from the Browns if it was there? You want to win, presumably, so its silly to think that they would ever turn down a BETTER offer from the Browns.
Which means, then, we never made a better offer, and Holmgren’s statement that our offer was “just as good” as the offer made by the ‘Skins is at best incorrect or at worst, an outright lie.
Again, WHY would this guy not milk that situation for all it was worth? If they were willing to up the ante, why in the world would this guy just say “no, thanks”. This still reeks of collusion to me….unless our offer was so off base that even a marginal bump wasn’t going to get us close to Washington, I doubt that would be the case though.
*IF* Holmgren did lie is it such a bad thing? It’s the draft where smokescreens are often used so other teams don’t jump in front of you and pick the players that you wanted…
Is it such a bad thing of Holmgren lied? Hmm…how do I answer this properly.
I guess I’m torn a little; on the surface, misdirection is definitely needed in the Phony Way of pre-draft time in the NFL. I get it.
On the other hand, with a team this poor and an offense this anemic, you need to literally jump out of your seat like in the olde time movies and go after something that is as close to gold as you’re going to get. That will INSTANTLY elevate your sad offensive performance and make your team relevant.
RG3 can cause players to WANT to come here, as opposed to the opposite, which we’ve been hearing in recent days.
Conjecture: Holmgren made a token offer so he can plausibly say he made an offer and assuage the teeming masses of angry Browns fans who are near boiling with anger.
as discussed before it’s a game theory item. the Rams likely weighed the risks of an “open auction” vs. a “silent auction” and felt that the silent auction would be the best way to maximize their return (teams bidding against a ghost instead of each other).
now, if he told the teams it was a silent auction and went back on his word, then both teams would know to never trust him again. it’s bad for his future business as that word would also get around.
it is not impossible at all. we could have offered #4, ’13 1st, ’14 1st. So, we are missing the 2nd rounder that Washington offered. we then could have countered saying we’d add it in and were rebuked.
also, I do not see how it is plausible that we put in a “token” bid as both Holmgren and now Snead have both said that we put in an offer and then even tried to up that offer to win the bid afterwards. that does not sound token in any way.
Exactly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_first-price_auction
Makes sense.
Makes sense.
The whole silent auction thing took away the Browns advantage of having a deeper war chest to battle with…
Plus the Rams had an out because they said they wouldn’t take the offer if it wasn’t “anywhere near what they wanted for the pick,” so it was like first-price-sealed-bid PLUS.
Maybe he thinks that the redskins are going to stink way more than the browns in the next 2 years and he will get better draft picks because of it (haha wishful thinking)
I think the fact that the Rams held a silent auction rather than having teams bid against each other puts more validity behind Mike Holmgren’s comments that the relationship between Jeff Fisher and Mike Shanahan worked in the Redskins’ favor.
Knowing that Dan Snyder would top any bid thereby leaving the team without any hope of putting talent around RG3, it’s easy to see how the relationship would come into play. The Rams knew they were going to get a haul either way, why cripple a team that the new coach is friendly with?
Plus it could be argued that the value of the Browns offers was the equal of Washington’s simply because the Rams knew the true value of two of the first-round picks since they are in the upcoming draft. Not knowing where the Redskins will pick next year or the following year brings less value to those picks.
Plus, plus, what is the big deal about asking they could sweeten the pot? Where is the harm in that?
A bit of a stretch, perhaps, but no more than taking the easy train of Holgrem’s a liar/the Browns are incompetent.
That offer, the one you just mentioned, is not “every bit” as good as Washington’s offer, so no.
Maybe it wasn’t a token offer, but perhaps half-hearted is what it is was. Maybe Holmgren thought that there was no way the Skins would trade so much for RG3.
I wouldn’t expect Holmgren to give us every detail of how they missed out on the trade. But, given the context of his audience, and the question he was responding to, I think he went too far. Something as simple as “We were involved in the trade scenario. Washington sure gave up a lot to get this pick, good luck.” Would have sufficed would it not? I’m guessing that wouldn’t have solicited a response from Snead, who obviously felt the need to give his side of the story because of Holmgren’s comments.
I agree man! And the owner was trying to say that he wanted to be “ethical” about it. I don’t quite understand that. He also said that he didn’t want to play 2 teams against eachother? Don’t understand that either. From a St Louis Rams perspective, I would not be happy about this (potentially having more or a better package of picks).
If he lied, I wonder what he thought of to make him all red and pissed when he was talking about it.
Is it worth the risk of looking like the Dolphins when you can’t pull anyone in?
So the Rams’ GM put his professional reputation and job at risk to do a solid for the coach’s old friend? Not buying it.
An open auction ran the risk of stretching things out. If either the Skins or the Browns decided to walk then there would have only been one buyer and the Rams would have lost all leverage. With Matt Flynn, why take that risk just to maybe get the #36th rather than the #38th (or whatever it might have been)?
Also
1.)The demand for RG3 wasn’t getting any higher.
2.)The Rams couldn’t risk one of their two buyers going else where for a QB.
If you were the Rams, would you want (Browns) this years 4th, 22nd and next years first or potentially this years 4th, and the following 2 years first rounders…
I really believe it was a token offer the Browns didn’t show any outward signs of being remotely interested in trading up to #2 to take Griffin until late. Griffin didn’t make sense for this team then all of a sudden they supposedly became interested only to lose out to Washington when they had more to offer.
kind of like a priceline “name your price” deal when trying to get a hotel….priceline at any $$ amount can say no deal, but because they don’t tell you what they would accept, or where other people are getting their rooms, a lot of times people give them more than they’re willing to take just to make sure they get a room
kind of like a priceline “name your price” deal when trying to get a hotel….priceline at any $$ amount can say no deal, but because they don’t tell you what they would accept, or where other people are getting their rooms, a lot of times people give them more than they’re willing to take just to make sure they get a room
Unless you’re a competent “free re-bidder”. Something the Browns apparently didn’t have the luxury of doing.
Unless you’re a competent “free re-bidder”. Something the Browns apparently didn’t have the luxury of doing.
Looking like them? WE ARE THEM. We were them before it was cool to be them, as it were. Haven’t you read the recent reports from players not wanting to come here? You think that’s only because of RG3?
Holmgren has taken enough risks already for me to not think this is outside of his ability to condone.
“Polish sausage….Ditka…beer…sausage….da Bulls…”
These are just guesses.
Wow – oribiasi concludes the Browns are at fault.
In other news, water continues to be wet.
My conclusion is based on the facts as we know them. Unfortunately, they don’t favor the Browns. That I brought it up is immaterial and irrelevant. You’re drawing attention away from the actual issue.
We missed our shot. A decade more of irrelevance. Y’all ready?
Another good point.
I know. I was just pointing out that there is more to the story than just jumping to the lazy and tiresome assumption that Holmgren and Heckert are stooges.
Come in off the ledge Jack it isn’t that bad, yet. The Browns have a chance with this draft to “change the momentum” but lets see what happens. So far I’m not happy with the way they’ve conducted business: the whole Griffin debacle, the Hillis back and forth, cutting Steinbach, signing virtually no FAs but that can all be swept aside with a solid draft. By solid I mean using the draft picks they currently have to draft starting (from day one) playmakers not more Owen Marecic’s or Jordan Cameron’s and definitely not trading down from 4 to 20s.
We’ll probably never know exactly how it went down, unless Snead divulges what the Browns offer was. The only two reasons I can see him withholdig this info is too help Holmgren from looking like a complete buffoon if the Browns offer wasn’t that great, or the Browns offer was better and he did do a favor for a friend. I cannot believe the latter, there is just no way the guy would risk his job to do a “solid” for Shanahan.
My best guess on what happened is that the Browns had an idea of where the ‘Skins were coming in, and they felt that their 2 1sts this year plus next year was a better offer than 2 Skins 1sts over the next few years plus a 2nd. In this scenario the Browns picks are higher and the return is more immediate than the Skins, this added value makes up for the 2nd round pick. Obviously St. Louis didn’t buy that and declined the Browns offer for another pick. In this way Holmgren can say “We had a deal every bit as good as theirs” and not be lying because he genuinely felt it was so.
I know in our Red/Blue state right or wrong style of arguing there has to be a bad guy and a good guy, but the simple truth is that these deals are based on the opinions of the particpants, and a person isn’t “Lying” because he feels his opinion is correct.
That being said, I think Holmgren made another terrible error in speaking about the matter in the detail he did. Like Rick says, all he had to say was “We made what we felt was a great offer and they went in another direction, now its over and we are moving on.”
I think this finally answers it. The trade happened the way it did. And when Holmgren said they offered just as good as an offer, he just meant they offered it but the Rams refused it after the they did the deadline. Also something to consider is, if we both offered 3 #1’s and a #2…maybe the Rams thought the Redskins picks would be lower over the years and be a better value then if the Browns started picking in the teens.
Doesn’t really matter what happened. I’m still glad we didn’t give in to the Rams’ silent auction ploy and mortgage the farm for one player that fills only one of many holes.
At the end of the day, who really cares? WAS and CLE made a play. WAS won. CLE thought it should have / could have won. CLE is disappoint.
hypothetically, how is 3 first rounders (or 2 and a swap) a mere token? That’s a fairly substantial offer, IMO.
“Token” would be like “uhh we’ll give you this year’s 4 and MoMass…”
yes, I agree. Holmgren could have made it clear that we put in a very good bid without implying there was something amiss about the process.
well, WAS got the pick. we don’t know that they “won” yet 🙂
I would say they were in a better situation then us last year to be honest. But free agent wise, we are not close to them. We signed a few guys and the one person who made the comment about not coming here got almost no money at the 9ers, where Alex Smith is throwing to him. He’s not exactly in a better place.
I’m sorry, are you saying we, the Browns, are in a better situation right now than we were before last year’s draft?
If you’re saying that, I have to ask: how do you think this? We have no RT, RG, WR1, RB1, RB2, solid QB. We scored 1 more point last year than the 1999 Browns. We have to fill all of these holes, presumably, with a rookie. And, we all know rookies, on average, do not have their “career” years during their rookie season.
So, we face mountains of uncertainty at every major skill position and we have holes in our offensive line.
How are we in better shape this year so far?
Oh I agree. If that is what we offered…and of course, I don’t think it is.
Agreed. And getting outbid by crazy Dan Snyder isn’t the end of the world. All it means is that you’re probably not Al Davis.
If we had outbid three first rounders and a second we would only have been the winners of a QB who would fail due our inability to draft any talent to put around him. At any rate, I’d much prefer to look at scenarios to improve our team which actually can still happen.
Sheard, Taylor, Little
actually have some faith in Gocong after seeing him play SOLB.
DQ made it through a year healthy
Haden continued to rise. Dmitri and Skrine played well for CB3 and 4.
Pinkston played well for a rookie.
and, to be fair, here is where we are worse off:
Hillis spent the year injured, being a PR nightmare, and is now gone.
Watson got more concussions and was not able to replicate his ’10.
MoMass, Cribbs, Robiskie, Norwood, etc. – none are really worse than ’10 (though Robo is gone), but none were really better either.
Lauvao – go back and forth on him, but I am less confident of him today than I was for his potentialy a year ago.
Sheldon Brown – very bad year for him and now want to see Dmitri take his place.
Fujita – want him cut.
*Both those last two are overweighted by Gocong, Dmitri, Skrine positives.
and the big one:
Colt did not have a good year. So, we had some hope for him to greatly improve. We still can, but it would take significant growth (more than is likely to just project).
I feel like the browns plan in FA is to sign just enough free agents to fill the holes with passable players to we can field a team to allow Heckert the freedom to draft the best player available in the draft as opposed to reaching for need.
Yes, well said on both posts. I am sorry, but the 2012 Browns, pre-draft, are worse than the 2011 Browns, pre-draft.
How they will be post-draft is an unknown.