While We’re Waiting… Are the Cavs buyers or sellers?
February 14, 2014Cavalier Film Room: A window into the Anthony Bennett skill set
February 14, 2014While the majority of folks on the shores of Lake Erie seem encouraged by the Browns’ recent shakeup in the front office, nationally, the franchise is still regarded as a joke.
Sports Illustrated released an offseason outlook ranking for the NFL, with the Cleveland Browns checking in dead last at No. 32. The off-beat rankings were calculated based off grading on a scale of 1-5 across four categories: pending free agents, cap space, amount of draft picks, track record of GM/management. They were not necessarily related to success on the field in 2013.
Although the Browns have lost at least 11 games over the last six years, there is still a sense of optimism locally heading into this offseason because of over $45 million in cap space and 10 picks in the upcoming draft, including three in the top 35. In fact, Jacksonville, the No. 1 ranked team, is similar with their $50 million in cap space and 10 picks, although the bulk of those picks are later in the draft.
While one would think those factors would surely have the Browns checking into these offseason outlook rankings somewhere besides the very bottom, the perception of the team’s front office plummet them to No. 32.
In a set of rankings where categories were graded 1-5, the Browns’ front office situation received a grade of -5, thus shooting the Orange and Brown to the bottom of the list.
Here’s what SI had to say about the team’s offseason odds.
32. Cleveland Browns
Breakdown: FAs: 2 | Cap: 4 | Draft: 4 | GM: -5 | TOTAL: 5
The Browns have $45.5 million in cap to spend in the new league year, and two first-round picks after fleecing the Colts in the Trent Richardson trade. There’s a lot of talent on defense, and a few real playmakers on the offensive side of things. In other words, everything needed to build a real NFL powerhouse. Unfortunately, a front office that deserves a far lower rating than the one we were able to give it (heck with it; we’re throwing the lowest grade possible at this mess) will almost unquestionably squander these great gifts. Because when your team owner is under federal investigation, and your organization has changed team presidents, general managers and head coaches at a dizzying rate, it’s hard to take anything you do seriously.
The fact that Sports Illustrated writers went off the scale to bring down the Browns may have Clevelanders discouraged, but the positioning of the rival Steelers may provide a silver lining for Browns fans.
30. Pittsburgh Steelers
Breakdown: FAs: 2 | Cap: 1.5 | Draft: 2 | GM: 2.5 | TOTAL: 8
It’s a known fact that the Steelers would have liked a better yield in their recent drafts. And general manager Kevin Colbert is a man very much in the firing line now as the Steelers try to re-fuel for a new generation of success with the need to pare down nearly $13 million in cap space just to get to zero. The formerly great defense slipped to the middle in 2013, and though protection improved for Ben Roethlisberger in the second half of the season, this was a team out of balance. And with more than a third of the roster lined up for free agency, it may be a while before this most stable of franchises is on top again. — DF
The only reason Pittsburgh comes in ahead of Cleveland on this list is the perception of the general manager’s office. In fact, if the Browns’ front office would have received the minimum grade outlined by the authors of 1, Cleveland shoots up the list to a tie for No. 16, ahead of five 2013 playoff teams.
47 Comments
I don’t think anyone can take this seriously. The writer is just playing into the tired old “dysfunction” group-think, as if firing Banner in February is going to have an effect on our won-loss record in the fall. This is just more media snark because, you know, the Browns will “almost unquestionably” screw everything up. Whatever.
BTW, did you see who they ranked No. 1 as having the best outlook? It’s a tie between Jacksonville and Oakland. Yeah, okay.
“Best” line:
“[A] front office that deserves a far lower rating than the one we were able to give it (heck with it; we’re throwing the lowest grade possible at this mess) will almost unquestionably squander these great gifts.”
The writer IS talking about Farmer and Scheiner, right? How does he know that they’ll screw up? How does he know anything about them at all? Because the last FO screwed up (you know, the guys that were fired – who “fleeced the Colts”), they’ll undoubtedly screw up? Pretty obvious that this writer BBQs at Lombardi’s house.
Arbitrary rankings! I hate this stuff SO, SO much.
“Best” line:
“[A] front office that deserves a far lower rating than the one we were able to give it (heck with it; we’re throwing the lowest grade possible at this mess) will almost unquestionably squander these great gifts.”
The writer IS talking about Farmer and Scheiner, right? How does he know that they’ll screw up? How does he know anything about them at all? Because the last FO screwed up (you know, the guys that were fired – who “fleeced the Colts”), they’ll undoubtedly screw up? Pretty obvious that this writer BBQs at Lombardi’s house.
Arbitrary rankings! I hate this stuff SO, SO much.
completely agree, the Browns could still be completely dysfunctional, but it’s ridiculous to say authoritatively that the FO will mess up an ideal cap & draft situation with no actual factual data.
completely agree, the Browns could still be completely dysfunctional, but it’s ridiculous to say authoritatively that the FO will mess up an ideal cap & draft situation with no actual factual data.
“DYSFUNCTION OMG”
The dysfunction has been (God I hope) corrected with the firing of Banner and Lombardi, not made worse. That’s a positive. I totally get giving the Browns a 1, but a negative 5 is lazy.
This guy is dumb.
Outside of the Browns, I tried to make sense of what they were trying to accomplish with the rankings and fell short. They seem completely arbitrary.
Are they for how much a team can improve by next season? That explains Oakland and Jacksonville at the top. But, if so, then how are the Saints #17 considering their bad cap and low draft pick slot? And, they mention that they almost definitely will lose Jimmy Graham.
Are they an indicator for how good fans should feel about their team’s prospects to improve? That would be pretty arbitrary to begin on, but even so, why would JAX, Oak, and the Jets be so high? Why would the Bengals (among others) be so low?
Categories are: FA, Draft, Cap, and GM. So, why do so many paragraphs talk about coaches, players that are not FA, etc. ?
Unlike Garry, I like rankings. They can be fun to debate and go through the reasons. But, to do so, you have to know what they are ranking. I cannot even figure that out with this one.
“Actual factual.” I like it, mg! Could make for a nice rap lyric. “I got the actual factual, the four-year contractual, guaranteed pactual, and I got your back you’all . . . ”
Anybody got Jay-Z’s number handy?
“While the majority of folks on the shores of Lake Erie seem encouraged by the Browns’ recent shakeup in the front office, nationally, the franchise is still regarded as a joke.”
You can’t be the self-deprecating fat kid in school and then one day get offended when someone calls you Orca.
That said, these rankings are genuinely worthless—they are nothing and do nothing.
Honestly, I think he is following the general principle of: predict the Browns to be terrible and you will be correct at least 75% of the time.
Considering most of these guys are correct less than 25% of the time, they are trying to pad their stats 😉
Browns – (Joe + Mike) = HOPE, baby!
Bannermetrics! 😀
isn’t Usher still a part owner of the Cavs? can make it into a smooth R&B lyric instead.
HA! Well said.
But, one day (and when that day arrives, oh yes NFL, it’s on the way…) when that fat kid decides he’s had enough…
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pywmD256fzw/UWLVemQll6I/AAAAAAAAAp0/k13T0m3anq0/s320/zangief-kid-o.gif
Jeez, that’s one mean pile-driver. Did the kid live?
Jeez, that’s one mean pile-driver. Did the kid live?
Yes. Some school in Australia 3 or 4 years ago.
Support for Orca was universal.
Eh I stopped caring about what the national media thought years ago.
Somewhere along the line, that little kid learned the principle of “jab/feint with your left, then follow-up with your dominant right.” Somewhere along that same line, he missed the principle of “don’t @#$% with a grizzly bear.”
Well, you’re wrong.
Garry’s Top Seven Least Favorite Words:
7. Top
6. Dysfunction
5. Attendance
4. Combine
3. Salary
2. Debacle
1. Mock
I tried to uptick you on this, but the number keeps coming up as -1.
I guess Lord Disqus does not agree.
Some lessons you learn on your own.
Others you are taught…
Disqus just knows:
http://a2.img.mobypicture.com/861826419e0b9105ceb129a9dcba100d_view.jpg
I shall combine the mock salary debacle with the top dysfunctional attendance.
“I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
A recent focus group said if you call them “lists” instead, it will be palatable.
And when listing, you must put somebody/something in that has no business being in the list so that people will buzz (i.e. Miley Cyrus is the GQ Most Beautiful Woman Alive). Speaking of buzz, make it a Buzzfeed. Everything needs to be boiled down to a Buzzfeed.
In the Year 2000, people will only be able to process information/news in list forms, so don’t include a lot of facts (or any), such as the subject SI piece above. You’ll lose 50% of people after 200 characters.
Also include pictures of beautiful women, and pass out candy when possible. Reese’s are good, Kit Kats even better.
That is all.
Eh, it’s just a guy with an axe to grind. To go outside of an arbitrary 1-5 scoring system to skew a result is what a hack would do, and just destroys the integrity of the basis for debate.
With a ton of cap space and picks, and the talent that was mentioned, they should at least be top-10 judging on how JAX and OAK were ranked (giving them downward marks for the potential to lose Ward and Mack).
Very Marvin Gaye. I like it.
Garry’s head just exploded. Boom.
You left off:
Stooges
Decimate (when used improperly)
Twitter
Tweet
Facebook
Like
This is definitely a Top 5 comment of the day.
Oh, I was fine . . . until you left off an “r” in the name! Might as well go ahead and confuse “your” with “you’re” while your at it. THAT would lead to cranial obliteration.
Comic
Sans
*waiting anxiously for Garry to reveal other top5 comments of day*
All of them!
This only made it to #7 on the top Garry comments of the day list. Sorry, don’t kill the messenger. It’s a tough list to crack.
There has to be an appeals process.
What does Joe Flacco or Eli Manning do when AM 970 “The Fan Drive” out of Butte, Montana, do when they leave them off of their Top 6 lists? Whatever they do, I’m doing the same. I appeal.
if we are all special, then that’s just a fancy way of saying none of us are special.
I think Eli has his daddy call in and sweet talk the hosts. If it were in one of the Dakotas though he’d probably just have Cooper do it.
Well, congratulations. Enlightenment is a prize in itself.
Joe and Eli send out angry Tweets encouraging their Buttean followers to picket the radio station, thereby forcing management to crush The Fan Drive’s hosts like a bug.
You’re probably not doing that.
Only in this millenium is the phrase “angry tweets” not an oxymoron. I hate this world that I live in.
Now now, don’t let it get you down. As you were. Smoke ’em if ya got ’em, bum ’em if ya don’t. Embrace your fossil-hood. Be one with the 20th century. Works for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90aVyDhUK4Q
I’m blaming that one on auto correct, it was noted and corrected. Before YOUR post I might add.
*yore