NFL - Random Opinions

Nothing about what you just said is
A ) a citation
B ) indicates in any way that it was Mayfield requesting not to come to camp.

"Excused" is a blanket term. You're not new to the sports world - you should be familiar with teams using set language regardless of specifics. It's part of what is negotiated and agreed to re: teams releasing information publicly. When I was running a group years ago and we ran auditions, I'd "excuse" the 100-ish people that didn't make it. They didn't ask to not make it, they just didn't make it. "Excused" has no bearing without credible information that Mayfield is the one who specifically requested not to come to camp. It's just as likely that the team preemptively "excused" him from camp themselves.

The above is ESPECIALLY true given that they said he wouldn't be fined for camps. Again, if they're the ones initiating him being excused, they sure as shit can't impose a fine on him. If we had heard it the other way around - that there was any fight over the fine for not attending - I would agree that Mayfield likely initiated it. But none of this is evidence that points in that direction. Hence, my request for a citation.

Let the petty shit go, kid. Don't try to start anything personal when, again, you write a meaningless paragraph / response. Not a good look for you.

 

There were reports that the rift between Rodgers and Green Bay were too much to mend... A simple statement from Rodgers to the media and all was hunkydory... It can be fixed and I believe the locker room, despite rumors, would appreciate that they talked Baker into coming back, rather than relying on Brissett for the 2022 season. If they do nothing else and Brissett and Dobbs are the QBs come week one. This was a wasted season. It will not be pretty. Players are not going to risk their health for a team destined to lose.

 

Have not 'heard' this term since the last time I visited my Aunt, maybe 5 years ago.

 

LOL, showing my age, I don't think I have ever actually used the term before today. But I heard it growing up. It seemed appropriate.

 

All four major networks (NBC, ABC, CBS & FOX) have affiliates in Cleveland. All four have sports reporters assigned to cover the Browns and all four reported that Mayfield requested to be excused from mandatory OTA's / minicamps. I highlighted the word - mandatory because, to your point, fines could have been assessed had he not been excused.

Training camp is another matter altogether. To my knowledge, neither the Browns nor Mayfield have, to date, discussed their intentions regarding training camp.

IF Mayfield chooses to simply not show up -and- the Browns do not pre-emptively excuse him, then daily fines would most certainly be in play.

 

No they didn’t. There is no reporting that Mayfield asked and you can’t link any that does.

 

Yeah, you need to be of the caucasian variety and over 40 to have any idea language like this existed. lol

 

Not sure alienating players that want to play and trading for players with conduct issues and probable suspensions upcoming is how you bring your locker room together.

 

Damn you all are persistent. Does THIS appease you, if it is called a mutual agreement rather than BAKER MAYFIELD CALLED THE BROWNS AND ASKED TO BE EXCUSED?

Again, I found this immediately from a simple Google search.

Can we move on now?

 

You guys keep saying the reporting exists - all I'm asking is someone to provide it to me. I haven't found it.

The closest I've come is seeing "Both sides agreed" and Stefanski saying, "We felt like that was the best decision for both sides," which in no way indicates that Mayfield requested anything.

I get that Mayfield is the one who requested the trade, but every public statement from the Browns supports the idea that they are cooperating in trying to find a trade partner, and are not expecting him to attend / be included in any crucial team communications. Again, as I said, if they suddenly flip that script and mandate that he shows up or face fines, I'd be very excited to be his lawyer. There is lots of information that could contradict the position, and I'm just looking for it. That's all.

 

This literally tells us nothing. But thanks for the attitude.

 

Yeah, give us your insight into the case that could be made when the two sides agreed for him to be excused from one thing, but then both sides didn't agree on another thing. How would you approach that and expect to win?

 

It tells us that Baker, by proxy of his management team was in the conversation about what he would be involved with in the mandatory mini camp. Players are excused from these all the time, but then expected to be there for the opening of training camp. I understand and agree, this is a special set of circumstances, but wouldn't you also agree that both parties would have valid reasons for Baker not being present given both sides set of circumstances? That would exclude any reasoning for litigation involving a different set of circumstances involving training camp, especially if the issue of Deshaun Watson's availability is enlightened by then.

 

I think I've said it several times, pretty clearly. Unless the Browns have been actively trying to get him involved - sending him playbook info, meeting invites, etc - they have pretty clearly exhibited a pattern of behavior / expectation. Whether it's public statements that they're trying to trade him, or excusing him from camps without penalty despite no injuries / other issues, it's pretty clear that the Browns have not expected Mayfield to be part of the team this year.

I keep seeing Browns fans on this board say that the Browns can just fine him if he doesn't show up and play. What I'm saying is that the team, unless we see evidence otherwise, has not created the expectation that he will play this year. If they're not involving him, and then expecting him to come in and play as a complete 180 of their previous behavior, that's an easy argument. Baker stands to lose a lot of future money / get injured if he comes into a situation that the team purposefully didn't properly prepare him for. The team doesn't just get to change the expectations of him because they feel like it. If your employer told you not to come to training on new processes, didn't send you any communications on new training / processes, instructed you not to come to work, and then told you that if you don't show up to work to lead those processes you'll be fined, you'd be pissed. And rightfully so. Just to put it into practical terms, since I'm not sure this is clicking for everyone.

There are lots of specifics here that we're not privy to, so this is a hypothetical. And it's why I'm asking if anyone has info that would give us more insight. But for people here to keep saying that they team will just fine him without issue if he doesn't show up is naive, based on currently public info.

 

I do not agree with this assertion. Baker clearly doesn't want to be there. But if the Browns are the ones who told him not to come, if Baker did not request to be excused, etc - then THEY are the ones liable. Sure, he agreed to it - why wouldn't he? - but what matters is whether or not they're the ones that initiated it.

 

The reasoning is that it is clearly stated in the collective bargaining agreement that they can. I don't think there is any language protecting the players if they don't receive a playbook prior to training camp. I could be wrong, but please give me a citation if there is. If you need a citation where it states clearly the teams allowance for fines, I can provide it.

 

I'm not sure that Baker Mayfield didn't set the tone when he did not show up for any previous voluntary mini camp. When he chose not to be at any of those, regardless of who called who, that set the tone for Mayfield's desire not to be at the mandatory camp. I am not going to say your argument doesn't have merit, but would you your law firm want to take that case contingent on the outcome? I understand if you take it because you are getting paid by the hour, but how confident would your firm be that they would get anything in return based on your argument if there was a contingency in place?

 

The other possibility is that Mayfield isn’t healthy enough for minicamp and/or training camp. He had surgery on his injured shoulder this off-season.

 

As far as I know there haven't been any new reports since March, but that was the case during the mini camp. The surgery was in January, with a recovery period of 4-6 months. As of March his throwing schedule was right on time with the original plan post surgery in January. That puts him on schedule for a complete recovery prior to training camp. Again, I haven't seen any reports of setbacks or otherwise, but the original schedule had him completing recovery sometime in June.

 

Just to show how utterly ridiculous the Browns organization is think on this.
The Browns had two picks in the draft that Watson came out of , one they used on Garrett who isn’t on a HOF directory and the other they used on Peppers who isn’t even on the team anymore. They could have picked Mahomes and Watt and had two players that probably would have lead them to a SB appearance or two so far. Now they have that wasted first overall pick on a player not Garrett who wasn’t worthy , he’s not even the best pass rusher from that draft. Now they have traded 3 draft picks to obtain a QB who isn’t as good as Mahomes whom they could have picked first in that draft. Instead of having two sure HOFers they have two inferior players which is costing them 4 first rd picks. Go figure
Also they would have had a first rd pick last draft 2023 and 2024.