Brandon Browner [Merge]

[COLTS449]

He got reinstated today. I thought he was a RFA, but apparently he's an UFA. He could end up being a steal this offseason, as I don't think any team will give him a big contract for obvious reasons. What do you guys think? If we could get him on a cheap one year deal Grigs should be all over it. We need a playmaker on the other side of Vontae.

[Patagonia Chris]

I'd be all for it. He'd give us another solid Man to Man CB. I'm not sure if the Colts will spend anymore money in FA on CB's after they sign Vontae though.

[Dark Superman]

Browner is a stud.. He would fit in nicely here..

[COLTS449]

I think he would come cheap enough on a one year deal for Grigs to be interested. If Grigs wants to keep Toler, signing Browner would be the best option. If we go into the season with Toler, we almost have to have quality depth.

[bestQBever]

I'm for it. He was an original member of the LOB and is huge. 

[BigQandTheManiac]

is this the same browner that t.y. said he doesn't like?

[Iancolts]

Browner would be nice if we drop Toler and sign Browner for a lot cheaper spend more money on tackles and center preferably 2 tackles and one center. After that get a stud at ILB

[NewColtsFan]

I think the problem with Browner is that he's a two-time offender of the league drug system.

 

I think one more and he's suspended for a year.

 

Not sure Grigson wants to go down that road...................

 

By the way, for the record,  I like Browner, and think he'd fit our system well....   but the risk is big....

[Superman]

I think the problem with Browner is that he's a two-time offender of the league drug system.

I think one more and he's suspended for a year.

Not sure Grigson wants to go down that road...................

By the way, for the record, I like Browner, and think he'd fit our system well.... but the risk is big....

That depends on the terms of his reinstatement. His challenge was based on his insistence that he shouldn't have been in the drug program to begin with. Don't know exactly how that all was resolved. He might not be in the program anymore.

[markabrown96]

Coming from the CFL, he connects with some of our players

[Kyle]

http://nfltraderumors.co/nfl-reinstates-seahawks-cb-brandon-browner/

 

I see he has been reinstated and only "possibly" suspended for multiple games this year.  Is he worth a look even with a suspension???  I know he has had his problems (he smoked weed... no murder, rape, or guns) but the dude is a very good CB and seems to be saying all the right things to make a comeback.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

No. I might get flamed for this but it was the System and the Sherminator that made him look so good.

How much did the Seattle secondary/defense struggle with Browner out?

[OffensivelyPC]

All guys are worth a look.  I don't like the fact that he's turning 30.  I don't see us cutting Toler, and I think that if we add a CB at all, it's in the draft.  He would be an upgrade, but I think he'll be asking for more than we're willing to pay - considering we have other needs.  If he did a one year prove it deal, I'm all for doing that just to get a short term upgrade at the position, just depends on the cap hit.

[Shive]

He got a bit screwed over by the fact that he was elevated to the 3rd level of the NFL substance abuse program for failure to submit a drug test for the 5 years he was in the CFL.

That said, he should be able to be had for fairly cheap and would be a great stop-gap.

[BrentMc11]

I like his size and mean streak....not his actions.  Worth a discussion.  I do not like the thought we sign someone and they miss the first 4 games.....kind of like Brazill last year.  He might have been more effective...earlier.

[OffensivelyPC]

That depends on the terms of his reinstatement. His challenge was based on his insistence that he shouldn't have been in the drug program to begin with. Don't know exactly how that all was resolved. He might not be in the program anymore.

I don't think that is the case.  The challenge was whether he should have been upgraded to level 3 in the program (more on this below).  If you make your way into the Substance Abuse Policy (SAP), you are on it while in the NFL (and for some time after being released, more details below on that) and then are reinstated to the SAP upon being re-signed by a club.  In this case, when he re-entered the NFL in 2011, he didn't know he was upgraded until later on in the year.  he didn't contest it then, so even if he believes he shouldn't have been on the program, he would have effectively waived the ability to challenge that since it's been roughly 2 years from notice to the violation.

 

Now, the upgrade to level 3.  The timeline of this and whether he should have been upgraded to level 3 is debatable, but there is a provision in the SAP that allows the league to continue to subject players in the SAP to drug tests for 6 months, even if they have been cut and are currently not under contract with any club; under the SAP, this is called "Continued Participation."  A player who fails to show up for a drug screen within the 6 months are justifiably upgraded to a more strict level in the SAP.  In Browner's case, he claimed he didn't have notice of the tests, but assuming they were actually sent, it probably won't save him because the league would have sent it to the address they sent all the other notices too.  The obligation would be on Browner to notify the NFL of any changed address/contact information.  But what's uncertain is whether the drug tests were within 6 months after being released.  I don't know for sure.

 

The Continued Participation applies to all players, but there is a wrinkle in this, called "Never Rostered Player."  Never Rostered Players aren't subject to the SAP if they were not on a team roster for at least 6 consecutive games.  It doesn't say "Active" roster, just roster.  He was on IR for most the 2005 season.  Perhaps you may be able to better answer this question, but is being on IR considered "being on the roster?"  I don't know, but I would be willing to bet it does.  If that's true, I don't think Browner really ahs much of an argument unless the drug tests were after this 6 month period.

[Superman]

I don't think that is the case.  The challenge was whether he should have been upgraded to level 3 in the program (more on this below).  If you make your way into the Substance Abuse Policy (SAP), you are on it while in the NFL (and for some time after being released, more details below on that) and then are reinstated to the SAP upon being re-signed by a club.  In this case, when he re-entered the NFL in 2011, he didn't know he was upgraded until later on in the year.  he didn't contest it then, so even if he believes he shouldn't have been on the program, he would have effectively waived the ability to challenge that since it's been roughly 2 years from notice to the violation.

 

Now, the upgrade to level 3.  The timeline of this and whether he should have been upgraded to level 3 is debatable, but there is a provision in the SAP that allows the league to continue to subject players in the SAP to drug tests for 6 months, even if they have been cut and are currently not under contract with any club; under the SAP, this is called "Continued Participation."  A player who fails to show up for a drug screen within the 6 months are justifiably upgraded to a more strict level in the SAP.  In Browner's case, he claimed he didn't have notice of the tests, but assuming they were actually sent, it probably won't save him because the league would have sent it to the address they sent all the other notices too.  The obligation would be on Browner to notify the NFL of any changed address/contact information.  But what's uncertain is whether the drug tests were within 6 months after being released.  I don't know for sure.

 

The Continued Participation applies to all players, but there is a wrinkle in this, called "Never Rostered Player."  Never Rostered Players aren't subject to the SAP if they were not on a team roster for at least 6 consecutive games.  It doesn't say "Active" roster, just roster.  He was on IR for most the 2005 season.  Perhaps you may be able to better answer this question, but is being on IR considered "being on the roster?"  I don't know, but I would be willing to bet it does.  If that's true, I don't think Browner really ahs much of an argument unless the drug tests were after this 6 month period.

 

To the last part, yes, being on IR is being on the roster. It's a reserve roster spot, by definition.

 

I don't know all the terms of his reinstatement and whatnot, or the details of the grievance and whatever else. Just saying that it's possible that a subsequent suspension doesn't result in a 16 game suspension. It's very possible that it does, I don't know. But they might have just set him back to level 1. 

[OffensivelyPC]

To the last part, yes, being on IR is being on the roster. It's a reserve roster spot, by definition.

 

I don't know all the terms of his reinstatement and whatnot, or the details of the grievance and whatever else. Just saying that it's possible that a subsequent suspension doesn't result in a 16 game suspension. It's very possible that it does, I don't know. But they might have just set him back to level 1. 

On his reinstatement back in 2011, no.  He was notified in August 2011 that he was on Stage 3 of the substance abuse policy.  It was then that he should have challenged the fact that he was in Stage 3.  He had 5 days to do so, so he would have been deemed to have waived any right to challenge and effectively accepted the fact he was Stage 3.

[Danfish98]

This would be a great 1 year prove it signing.  He stays off drugs, puts up numbers, he gets paid big by someone else next year.  He would give us great insurance against continued Toler health problems and if Toler stays healthy and Browner stays out of trouble, Toler could go back to being the slot corner he was so good at in Arizona. 

[markabrown96]

I think he signs a 1 year deal to a team trying to make an sb run

[COLTS449]

I think he signs a 1 year deal to a team trying to make an sb run

 

That's kind of what I think, and we are very capable of making a Super Bowl run.