ADVERTISEMENT

Browns trade Andy Lee because....

Congrats Andy! Goes from AFC cellar dweller to Super Bowl contender. Let's see who'll get the last laugh :D
 
I am happy for Lee, but also think this is a wise move for the Browns.

A punter is insignificant to how the Browns will do this year and it sends a message of accountability.

If they give Hue Jackson enough time he will win there.
 
To expect a punter trying to tackle someone in a pre season game is pure stupidity. In fact the kicker and the punter oughta be told kick the ball and get the eff out of the way. Maybe runs some interference. But no physical contact.
 
To expect a punter trying to tackle someone in a pre season game is pure stupidity. In fact the kicker and the punter oughta be told kick the ball and get the eff out of the way. Maybe runs some interference. But no physical contact.
And that's why they are The Browns.
 
I am happy for Lee, but also think this is a wise move for the Browns.

A punter is insignificant to how the Browns will do this year and it sends a message of accountability.

If they give Hue Jackson enough time he will win there.

Getting a fourth-round pick for a punter is a great deal. However, I don't see how trading a punter sends any message of accountability. If I was a defender, I would miss some tackles and hope they traded me to a contender as well ;)
 
If Lee were some scrub it'd be a different story but he's a proven commodity that has been to the pro bowl. Eff the Browns.
 
It's been a rough day for Pitt players on the Browns. Lee gets traded and K'Waun Williams got cut. Does anyone know anything on JP Holtz?
 
The Lee trade sounds like a good move long term but they sound like fools targeting a friggin punter for lack of effort and not tackling a guy in a meaningless game.

Ask Shaun (sp??) Suisham how that worked out for him.
 
It's been a rough day for Pitt players on the Browns. Lee gets traded and K'Waun Williams got cut. Does anyone know anything on JP Holtz?

Everything i've seen says Holtz won't make it....but it's the Browns, so he'll be starting for them week 1.
 
If that kind of kick coverage is what he expects from his team he might be better advised to use a safety as a punter. A much bigger problem than the punter not going all out to make a tackle is that the other 10 guys presumably were going all out, and yet none of them even came close to making a tackle and a full half of them were never even on the television screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaos
If that kind of kick coverage is what he expects from his team he might be better advised to use a safety as a punter. A much bigger problem than the punter not going all out to make a tackle is that the other 10 guys presumably were going all out, and yet none of them even came close to making a tackle and a full half of them were never even on the television screen.


He didn't have to go "all out", but Christ give a little effort.

Anyway, it worked out for him. And probably the Browns
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swervin27
He didn't have to go "all out", but Christ give a little effort.

Anyway, it worked out for him. And probably the Browns


Just by way of comparison, a reporter asked the Stillers special teams coach at the beginning of training camp that given what happened to Sean Suisam last year if he would advise his kicker and punter to not try to make tackles in exhibition games. His response was something along the lines of I'd like the other ten guys to do their job and then I'll never have to worry about it. He didn't come right out and say it, but it was pretty clear that he didn't want his guys putting themselves in that kind of situation in an exhibition game.

I can guarantee you that the Stillers would not get rid of a kicker or punter who did that in an exhibition game, and it's stuff like that that helps explain why the Stillers are what they are and why the Browns are what they are.
 
Just by way of comparison, a reporter asked the Stillers special teams coach at the beginning of training camp that given what happened to Sean Suisam last year if he would advise his kicker and punter to not try to make tackles in exhibition games. His response was something along the lines of I'd like the other ten guys to do their job and then I'll never have to worry about it. He didn't come right out and say it, but it was pretty clear that he didn't want his guys putting themselves in that kind of situation in an exhibition game.

I can guarantee you that the Stillers would not get rid of a kicker or punter who did that in an exhibition game, and it's stuff like that that helps explain why the Stillers are what they are and why the Browns are what they are.


They aren't close to being in the same situation.


This was move made for multiple reasons not just lackluster effort on a punt. But I still think it was a good move for them. It accomplishes several things at once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jpripper88
They aren't close to being in the same situation.


You are right, they aren't close. The plays are exactly the same.

In reality this is all about the Browns looking for an excuse to dump the salary of a highly paid punter. They don't need a highly paid punter. They don't even particularly need a good punter at this point. Lee gave the Browns an excuse so they could say to their fans "see, if guys don't go all out all the time, even when going all out is meaningless, we will get rid of them". And fans eat shit like that up. On the other hand, the players aren't dumb enough to not realize what this is all about, so it isn't going to have much effect on them at all. Except on the field, where this move made them a weaker team.
 
Just by way of comparison, a reporter asked the Stillers special teams coach at the beginning of training camp that given what happened to Sean Suisam last year if he would advise his kicker and punter to not try to make tackles in exhibition games. His response was something along the lines of I'd like the other ten guys to do their job and then I'll never have to worry about it. He didn't come right out and say it, but it was pretty clear that he didn't want his guys putting themselves in that kind of situation in an exhibition game.

I can guarantee you that the Stillers would not get rid of a kicker or punter who did that in an exhibition game, and it's stuff like that that helps explain why the Stillers are what they are and why the Browns are what they are.

I agree with this sentiment but I actually don't believe for a second that had anything to do with why they got rid of Lee. They are going to suck again this year. He had a big salary they shed and the Browns got a 4th rounder for their 7th rounder. They've been stacking draft picks (which they'll probably screw up but that's another topic). Strictly a football move. Jackson also thought he could "send a message" and just use Lee as a scapegoat. But turns out the message was received a bit differently in the public eye. I'm guessing even some of the players rolled their eyes at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pittbaseball11
You are right, they aren't close. The plays are exactly the same.

In reality this is all about the Browns looking for an excuse to dump the salary of a highly paid punter. They don't need a highly paid punter. They don't even particularly need a good punter at this point. Lee gave the Browns an excuse so they could say to their fans "see, if guys don't go all out all the time, even when going all out is meaningless, we will get rid of them". And fans eat shit like that up. On the other hand, the players aren't dumb enough to not realize what this is all about, so it isn't going to have much effect on them at all. Except on the field, where this move made them a weaker team.


The teams aren't in the same situation.

You wanna fight about this, go ahead.

It's not that important.

One NFL player recently stated he doesn't believe in dinosaurs but thinks mermaids are real. They aren't that smart, some will believe this. You should know dumb people no one is smarter than you....maybe souf.
 
I am happy for Lee, but also think this is a wise move for the Browns.

A punter is insignificant to how the Browns will do this year and it sends a message of accountability.

If they give Hue Jackson enough time he will win there.
Losing a punter to an injury in a pre-season game while making a tackle is no different than losing your front tooth by biting into a rock.
If Cleveland wants to instill accountability, they might start with whomever designed that sh!thole of a stadium next to nothing, impossible to get to and the least comfortable seating I've experienced in my 5 plus decades on the planet.
Thank God for billionaires who think their money makes them football geniuses.
 
Losing a punter to an injury in a pre-season game while making a tackle is no different than losing your front tooth by biting into a rock.
If Cleveland wants to instill accountability, they might start with whomever designed that sh!thole of a stadium next to nothing, impossible to get to and the least comfortable seating I've experienced in my 5 plus decades on the planet.
Thank God for billionaires who think their money makes them football geniuses.


They didn't ask him to get hurt or make the tackle. They asked him to at least make somewhat of an effort. There's a difference.
 
You are right, they aren't close. The plays are exactly the same.

In reality this is all about the Browns looking for an excuse to dump the salary of a highly paid punter. They don't need a highly paid punter. They don't even particularly need a good punter at this point. Lee gave the Browns an excuse so they could say to their fans "see, if guys don't go all out all the time, even when going all out is meaningless, we will get rid of them". And fans eat shit like that up. On the other hand, the players aren't dumb enough to not realize what this is all about, so it isn't going to have much effect on them at all. Except on the field, where this move made them a weaker team.

Right. And they also got themselves a future 4th round pick while giving up just a 7th rounder along with Lee.

If Hue Jackson wants to try to derive some motivational tactic out of this so he can shove it in his players' faces, so be it, but their new GM (DePodesta) isn't going to move guys to send a message.
 
They didn't ask him to get hurt or make the tackle. They asked him to at least make somewhat of an effort. There's a difference.
As I wrote, losing a punter in pre-season making a tackle is insane. There is no functional difference in making an effort for show and a not attemting to make a tackle. Pittsburgh lost a kicker for good and he his career making an effort.
But the members of the Alfred E.Newman Society agree with you.
 
They didn't ask him to get hurt or make the tackle. They asked him to at least make somewhat of an effort. There's a difference.


So you think that the "optics" of the situation would have been better had he run over and gotten himself into position to make the play and then at the last second backed away and not tried to make the tackle? Really? You think if he had done that that Hue Jackson would have said he had no problem with it? Really?
 
Getting a fourth-round pick for a punter is a great deal. However, I don't see how trading a punter sends any message of accountability. If I was a defender, I would miss some tackles and hope they traded me to a contender as well ;)
Maybe it was a salary dump, and the coach used the "did not tackle" excuse to save face. That would make the most sense in what's otherwise a stupid decision.

If there was ever a team that needed the services of a good, experienced punter, it's the Cleveland Browns.
 
I'm sure Lee is inconsolable right now. Imagine the pain of getting sent away from Cleveland?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT