Headlines

NFL News: Michael Lombardi sheds light on Cleveland Browns’ present and future

PR photo from Cleveland Browns press conference
PR photo from Cleveland Browns press conference

Yesterday Mike Lombardi spoke to the Pro Football Hall of Fame Luncheon Club and fans and media were in attendance as he spent nearly an hour talking about the Browns. He took questions and it seems was intent on explaining how he could simultaneously plan for the future while also not giving up on this year. It isn’t an easy thing to explain.

“I’m just saying we’re going to build this thing the right way so we can sustain success,” he said to the big crowd. “We’re certainly, by no means, thinking about giving up on the season – I’m too competitive – Nor, is Rob Chudzinski.”

We’ve heard all that before, but it’s been very difficult to sell for the the Browns thus far. Many continue to point to the past record of the team and clamor that adding more talent today is exactly what the Browns should have done in the draft, rather than trade picks for future ones. That’s where Lombardi finally gave a glimpse into why he might have been willing to trade for future “value.” Maybe, just maybe, he likes a lot of the young players on this team right now.

“We’ve got some pieces to compete with. This team last year was in a lot of close games had a lot of opportunities in the fourth quarter. I think we can build on that.

There’s a lot more from Lombardi in Nate Ulrich’s report over at Ohio.com

[Related: Indians weekend, language police, Redskins, Cleveland kidnappings, Gatsby, Goldthwait and more – WFNY Podcast – 2013-05-13]

  • FearTheRoo

    Exactly. We’ve heard it all before. Every front office has said the same thing and we never win. Nothing tells me this will be any different.

  • maxfnmloans

    Aww, come on. we win 5 times a year. That’s not good enough for ya?

  • Vindictive_Pat

    “Gipson played last year, and he played well for the team,” Lombardi said. “So he’s going to get all the looks.” – from Ulrich’s article

    As much as I’d like to see the Browns bring in Kerry Rhodes, I did think Gipson looked decent last year as a rookie. He had a knack for being around the ball. I do believe Lombardi when he says that he and the coaches like him as a possibility to start.

  • JHop
  • RGB

    At least we’re hearing it again from an interview not done in Seattle…

  • mgbode

    and if he (or Ward) gets hurt?

  • mgbode

    The Indians win 70+ times per year. We are a Tribe Town!

  • Vindictive_Pat

    Then God help us all.

  • Vindictive_Pat

    Then God help us all.

  • Roosevelt

    “I ignored the Browns because I didn’t think they were moving in a positive direction. Go back to last year. I went to training camp and I liked what they did; they went young, and looked good in doing so. I thought they were going in the right direction, but then there was an ownership change, a coaching change, a front-office change and a switch to the 3-4. There wasn’t any reason for a change other than the fact that new people were coming in.” — Clayton’s mailbag.

  • FearTheRoo

    Yet 100 people go watch the Indians and 70,000+ pay to watch crap football. I love the Browns as much as anyone but it’s time we get priorities in check.

  • Jay

    I think some of it has to do with the opportunity to see the Tribe 80 some times a year, while you only get 8 with the Browns. That’s one theory anyway.

  • And other than the fact we laid yet another 5 win season into the porcelain. Besides that of course, Mr. Clayton, yes there was no reason for a change.

  • saggy

    It’s quotes like THIS ONE that make me trust Lombardi.

    “Everything’s an evaluation,” Lombardi said. “We just have to keep going. Quarterback’s very important. I think Brandon’s a young player….”

    so young, that Weeden, so young.

  • He’s lying. Remember that he was on TV for years. As someone who works in the bizz– he is an actor and he’s not the best. The actions of the front office have already told me they have given up on this season. Nobody is really blaming them– they rebuilt yet again. Now, we will just have to see if Coach Chud will coach these players and put the best players in that give us the best chance to win. With Shurmur, it was obvious he didn’t put in the players that gave us the best chance to win which goes against the heart of football (Colt McCoy would have won at least 3 more games than Weeden; the TE/FB debacle, etc). The front office has already given up on 2013, but maybe the coach and players haven’t yet. Either way, I’m still holding on to my very optimistic 5-11 prediction.

  • mgbode

    “Colt McCoy would have won at least 3 more games than Weeden”

    is that so?

  • Roosevelt

    You’re not wrong, obviously, but it wasn’t a yes or no question – get rid of everyone or get rid of no one. It was obvious that the players were better more consistently than the ones we’d be accustomed to. It was obvious that a lot of the problems came from coaching. It was obvious that the defense was solid. The ideal situation for fans would have been to get a new coach and continue to improve. But even with a new owner, there was no reason to start tearing things down all over agaaaaaiiiin. And FWIW, this Haslam rebate c****f**** is shaping up to put yet another new regime in place after 2016, when we finally plateau at 7-9. (3rd place!!!)

  • Sam

    He must not be able to get passed Colt’s miraculous performance in an uptempo, offensively powered, air-it-out 6-3 win against Seattle. Or perhaps it was Colt’s awe inspiring wins against Jacksonville, Miami, and Indianapolis (Possibly the only three teams actually worse than the Browns that year).

  • Yes. Colt would not have dropped that ball to Gordon vs. the Ravens; Colt would not have opted to punt with a 4th and 1….

  • I hear you. The (seemingly perennial) tear down sucks. But we had to remove all stenches from the Lerner regime and his cohorts–and their failed philosophies (West Coast Offense for one). That said, I don’t see this new regime removing any key/indispensible pieces that had been in place. All the core players are still here (and MAYBE Sheard could be odd man out). They’ve only added to the mix (or “the pile” as Holmgren used to say) in bringing in pass rushers—so I don’t think it’s anything like a blow up of a roster. I do believe they’re “rebuilding” it but legitimately expecting quick results.

  • FearTheRoo

    If a Cleveland team is actually winning, they deserve attention for the fans and city. It doesn’t happen often. Regardless of how many games they play.

  • it is funny, how many dropped passes did brandon have, and yet he still managed to pass for more yards than both “mccoy and Kosar ” combined, in there rookie seasons, some ppl just have a crush on colt i think, lol…

  • Webster

    Supply and demand. If there were only 16 Tribe games each year Progressive Field would never have an empty seat.