Seems to me too little has been made of a remark Browns' GM Phil Savage made during the press conference announcing the extension of QB Derek Anderson---not that making much of any remark necessarily amounts to much, anyway.
Still, there seems to be a message for those particularly curious as to why the organization employing Savage authorized Phil's elevated proposal, one that seemingly reversed the field Savage was reportedly treading the prior day, when most witnessed indicated his was an attitude of resignation regarding Anderson's likely free-agent departure.
Too many in the area then began salivating over draft pick compensation, as if draftees were the assurance of deliverance from more than 43 without a professional football title.
Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on page five of the Saturday March 1, 2008 edition:
"He (Savage) said rumors swirled that teams wanted to sign Anderson to use him to move up in the draft. 'I didn't want to be standing on a street corner with a late (first round pick) and a late three, while another team used our quarterback to go up into the top 10 of the draft,' Savage said. 'That seemed to be a real possibility.'"
Isn't this suggesting Phil knew of a team picking in the latter portions of the upcoming draft intent upon signing away Derek---probably with the use of a "poison pill," so as to prevent the Browns from exercising their right to match the offer sheet?
Does it not additionally imply that team would consequently surrender its choices, dictated by the tender Cleveland extended to Anderson, in rounds one and three? These, of course, are the choices Savages referenced in his above-quoted remark.
Then, once Anderson's rights were secured, the QB would be delivered to another organization with a choice among the top ten. Essentially, that "poison-pill" team would be brokering a three-way exchange, facilitating a transaction on behalf of someone selecting in the top ten with whom Savage himself would not ordinarily elect to do business with himself.
Otherwise, that top-ten club would simply do the offer sheet itself with the Browns, right?
One might argue that "This is where Phil's vow to refuse any deal of Anderson for anything less than the scripted 1 and 3 comes into play." Yes, maybe.
Might it be just as likely that the ploy was not so much to save that top-ten team its third-rounder but to circumvent Savage's capacity to prevent Baltimore from re-acquiring the Oregon State passer lost on waivers nearly three years ago?
The Ravens, by the way, own selection eight in the April 26 draft.
This is purely conjecture, speculation, an application of interpretation and logic. But it might explain the Browns' willingness to sweeten the Anderson offer sufficiently so as to arrest the player's test of free-agent waters.
Savage chose to retain control of his quarterback's rights for as many as three more years, with the exclusive opportunity to liquidate them himself, should he see fit, without the player winding up with someone Savage's squad plays twice each year.
That alone is worth the additional contract price.
In the meantime, Savage also preserves his investment in a young man his coaches have nurtured into uncommon productivity. He's provided for continuity. He's avoided upsetting momentum as well as clubhouse and huddle chemistry. He's assured himself protection against injury at the position, too. And he's kept in play a tradeable commodity for subsequent opportunities, whether that piece is Anderson or the prospect known as Brady Quinn.
Though it may not have been a unanimously popular choice among fans and followers of the Cleveland Browns, it was the smart, prudent and appropriate decision to make. Maintaining the two-quarterback system for at least another season is a wise thing for the GM to have done.
Read the complete post at http://www.xanga.com/MALeonard/645114569/whats-phil-telling-us-here.html