Earlier this week, I authored an entry espousing the acquisition of Green Bay's passing combination of Brett Favre and Javon Walker, recognizing it as an uncommon opportunity to exploit another team's distress so as to secure bonafide playmakers for an outfit in need of them.
Surprisingly, I've experienced no commentary on the proposal, but will debate it here myself.
Such acquisitions as these, especially coming in tandem as they would, could significantly jeopardize team chemistry and solidarity, such as it is.
Among the advantages the team's new free-agent class brings are the contributions toward unity and veteran leadership. In fact, two of the more accomplished additions played as championship teammates in NE under Head Coach Romeo Crennel when he was D-Coor there. Not only does this mean they are familiar with the man and his system, but their smooth assimilation is virtually assured. They can be expected to function as spearheads in guiding the youngsters who abound on the roster in the direction of winning, showing how it is done, what it takes, what cannot be tolerated, and precisely when the moment of "winning time" arrives, as it does at some point each and every Sunday.
Some competitors know how to respond appropriately to its arrival and some never do.
This is not to say Favre and Walker are foreign to such concepts, only that two more strong-minded individuals with sizeable egos cannot haphazardly be added to the mix as if this were fantasy football. The clubhouse is full not of athletic commodities so much as it is of human beings with distinct personalities, personal agendas, motivations and styles---among other disparite parts. Determining those who will fit and excluding those who might not is no small part of a GM's job description.
One must deliberate before one can ascertain the potential ramifications of adding an outsider, particularly one with resume' and profile---not to mention two with history between them.
What is more, there seems to be a delicate balance present between the team's current primary quarterbacks, veteran Trent Dilfer and upstart Charlie Frye. The proposal to deal for Favre not only divides that union but relegates Frye to a clearly subservient role, which is not the one the youngster has in mind for himself nor the one for which he has prepared since assuming the snaps in late November. The Akron product and Williard native has done much to establish himself among his teammates and offensive partners.
How would Charlie, who seems to be the future for the organization at the position, react to Dilfer's subtraction? How might he respond to Favre? How will the team react to Charlie's placement behind the Hall-of-Famer? How might the demotion, however long it lasts, affect the team's eventual acceptance of Frye as successor?
These are not simplistic considerations, nor are they commonly followed by easy and comfortable solutions. The creation of a team, especially one that can focus and win together---which has to be the objective very soon and for seasons to come---is a sensitive process, not one which just happens by assembling athletes with requisite skill sets. Evidence of this is quite common, with Tice's Vikings and Snyder's Redskins recent examples to the contrary.
Does this mean the Browns would be foolish to entertain the proposal? Should they ignore investigating its viability? Not necessarily.
It simply means they would need to be careful and proceed with thought, care, concern and a clear plan for successful assimiliation, should it become necessary or recommended. Is there enough in-house leadership to permit it to occur smoothly, completely, successfully?
There is also the matter of respecting continuity and minimizing disruption. While adding such a gifted duo might raise the league's awareness of Cleveland's Browns as legitimate, if only on paper, it also risks inviting dysfunctionality and can distract from the cohesion many associated with the club have worked hard to create, nurture and maximize.
So, while an exchange such as was described earlier this week may inspire adjectives such as plausible, equitable, reasonable and do-able, it is nonetheless not without its pratfalls and apprehensions.
There is more to a wise and astute team trade, regardless of the sport, than simply swapping talents as if they were playing cards.
This writer remains intrigued. And perhaps the ballclubs are as well. But this is by far not a "no-brainer" nor a sure thing destined for unparalled success. There are reasons those deals that may appear to be "too good not to do" are somehow allowed to pass. Perhaps I've touched upon a few with this writing.