On Savage's Firing

by danvail on Jan 28, 2009 10:48 AM EST Comment 65 comments

-- Savage, meanwhile, remains a hot topic despite having departed nearly a month ago. We've been told that Savage was directly involved or responsible for no less that five strikingly unprofessional issues. A particularly alarming suggestion is that Savage relayed information to the head coach on various topics on "behalf" of the team owner... but which did not actually come from him.

-- In talking to no less than a dozen front-office types this past week, each stated the Browns organization was in disarray, filled with mistrust and ego-driven persons working on their own agendas. Those we talked to noted that they believe Savage will face a difficult challenge in holding a significant front office role again, outside of possibly returning to the Baltimore Ravens.

Quotes are from the Orange & Brown Report.

There's been much discussion on the reasons for Savage being fired, but every indication from every source seems to point in one direction: Savage was a borderline sociopath. Of course, that's likely an overstatement, but it accurately dramatizes the information that's surfaced to date.

Savage was not fired for poor personnel moves (in fact indications are that Lerner was pleased with Savage's moves, part of the reason he was given such leeway.) He was not fired because of the team's record. He was not fired prematurely.

Savage was fired because the FO was in chaos, the players were revolting, and he apparently offered no means of remedy.

During his tenure, I was always a big fan. I loved most of his moves, and genuinely believe he had a workable plan to building a winner. He just failed in execution. He was the anti-Butch, who executed well but had no plan for building a sustainable winner. They were both given too much power. They both failed.

0 recs | Comment 65 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This makes sense to me. As fans, we don’t know what goes on behind the scenes so we can only speculate on reports we hear and make judgements on what we know. I’ve said all along, as have many other people here, that Savage did a good job of upgrading the talent on this team through the draft, trades, and free agency. Of course there are mistakes we can point out but you can find those for any GM. So we all assumed there were things going on that we didn’t know about which contributed to his firing. Obviously the email to the fan, and the public statements about the coaching staff, didn’t help him either. But if the team really was in this much disarray then Savage needed to go.

Hopefully Kokinis will not only be a good judge of talent and make the right personnel moves but he can also restore order in the front office. He and Mangini seem to have a great working relationship, which is important, and they need to build a plan for the team together and move forward.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 28, 2009 11:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

We know very little about the power afforded to him. He was put in a situation where he had a coach he didn’t believe in and did his best to manipulate the situation for success. The guy was fighting organizational battles from day 1 (see John Collins). Does he have shortcomings, sure, and that may be what ultimately did him in, but the rest of the organization may be just as culpable.

To say Savage failed is a gross over simplification. The Cleveland Browns Organization failed just as much as Phil Savage.

by dvd1204 on Jan 28, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i couldn’t disagree more, quite frankly. beyond the struggle with Collins, we actually know a lot about the power afforded to Savage…all of it. after Collins went down, Savage became the top football person in the organization, period. he had final say over the 53-man roster (as he liked to point out so frequently), and even decision-making power with respect to assistant coaches (Chud). once Collins was out of the picture, to say Savage was fighting organizational battles is a joke. the only battle he may have been fighting was with Romeo…and Savage had all the firepower, Romeo had a super soaker.

the failures of the Cleveland Browns organization are inextricably linked to the failures of Phil Savage. you can put Randy in the drink with Savage, for giving him that power, but i think we all celebrated Phil’s ascendance within the org at the time.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jan 28, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m pretty sure that starting September 7 you have this exactly wrong. Savage didn’t kick those field goals, Savage didn’t start Steptoe, Savage didn’t leave Harrison on the bench for the third year, Savage didn’t not discipline Edwards, Savage didn’t bench Anderson after it was too late, Savage didn’t have Wimbely go up against the other teams LT 99% of the times he rushed, etc etc etc.

by kwoog on Jan 30, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Crennel was a terrible head coach. You’re not going to get a strong argument against that here.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 1, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Say what you want about Savage, but his failure is objectively defined: he did not win a Super Bowl with the Browns. That’s how I define failure.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Jan 28, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My arguement is that more failed than just Savage, and by your definition of winning a superbowl, I believe you would agree. The Cleveland Browns Organization failed and that is bigger than Phil.

On a side note, what is the over-under on Kokinis and Mangini? I say 4.5 and 3.5 years, respectively.

by dvd1204 on Jan 28, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They’ll leave together, and I’ll say they’re out in 4.

And yes, the Browns were pretty much a giant pile of fail in 2008.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Jan 28, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they’ll definitely leave together…and i’ll take size on the over at 4 or 4.5.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jan 28, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he did not win a Super Bowl within four seasons with the Browns. That’s how I define failure

Corrected

by kwoog on Jan 30, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My whole point is that the main reason he was limited to four seasons wasn’t the record – it was the way he ran the organization.

So you want to place the emphasis on how limited his time was. I want to place emphasis on why that time was limited.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 1, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the cut outs above are very consistent with what i’ve heard from friends who work in and around both the browns and the league. if you wanted to disagree with savage, apparently, you had to be prepared never to speak to him again and be treated like a terrorist. this is all hearsay, to be sure, but from people that i trust.

i continue to believe, though, that the team’s record had plenty to do with the firing. if the browns had been 40-24, and savage had acted the exact same way (hard to imagine his behavior leading them to 40-24, but bear with me), then i think he’s still got a job. bill belichick is a far superior sociopath to savage, but is lauded (rightfully) as one of the all-time greats. granted, belichick wouldn’t suffer the chaos that savage seems to have wrought, but had savage’s teams managed to win that would have been a pretty powerful salve for any misbehavior.

my point is, you can’t be a legendary douche AND have a losing team.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jan 28, 2009 1:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cliches are cliches for a reason. Winning can cure everything. (Or just about everything).

Its over now and we have a new GM, I am just hoping he will do a good job and be a good guy to work with.

by rufio on Jan 28, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is true. I suppose what I meant to say it wasn’t the main reason. If we had been losing but everything was going according to a plan in a reasonably harmonious environment, Savage is still employed.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Jan 28, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is no way this is true.

by kwoog on Jan 30, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Allow me to clarify, as I was a bit hyper-corrective: if we hadn’t had that 10-6 season, if there was no obvious signs of progress and just 4 losing seasons and everything was harmonious, he would have been fired.

But if you’re saying that during this 4-12 year it had been a harmonious 4-12 season (no fan email, no Winslow incident, no throwing Crennel overboard), then I agree, he would still be employed. But good organizations appreciate stability and let men learn on the job.

by kwoog on Jan 30, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes the “this is true” was considering the 2008 season in a vacuum. Had the success not been demonstrated in 2007 it’s a different story.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 1, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tony Grossi ran in to Phil Savage at the Super Bowl and asked him a few questions about his time in Cleveland. Obviously, Savage didn’t want to talk about that. Here is Grossi’s transcript of the short conversation he had with Savage. He didn’t have much to say, but he wants to get back in to football although he wouldn’t say which teams he is talking to.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 28, 2009 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That is a fun read

by Roger Dorn on Jan 28, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That has to be the most a Cleveland beat writer has pressed an insider for information in 15 years.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Jan 28, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To say Phil is bitter is an understatement. He will get work.
Time to move on. Just for once I would like this organization to run with focus and intensity.

"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"

by Grockcubs on Jan 28, 2009 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The same orange and brown report that said Bentley looked like his old self? I was an insider for a while with them, and listened to all their podcasts. They’re a joke. To cite them and only them, and then call it “every source” is specious at best and dishonest at worst.

I posted this in the Kokinis hiring thread, but here it is again:

It takes a cohesive organization with a unifying philosophy to identify your main target in free agency and swoop in and steal them from another team that wanted them badly and offered just as much if not more money (Baxter and Bentley).

It takes a cohesive organization with a unifying philosophy to make three picks and two draft trades within 2 hours of each other on draft day to get the top two players on your board, as well as a starting CB.

It takes a cohesive organization with a unifying philosophy to trade, within the first hours of the free agency period, a 2nd rounder, a starting CB and a 3rd rounder for one of the 3 best DT in the game and another highly talented DL who was so coveted by his team that he was franchised.

The organization he created received unanimously positive buzz in getting a franchise LT and QB in the same draft. The organization he created shocked everyone and went 10-6 in 2007. The organization he created rewarded the guys that got us there afterward. The organization he created made moves to get Rogers and Williams that were widely lauded by almost every kind of source, whether media or fellow NFL personnel (Tomlin, Dungy, Millen giving us props). And then the organization he created started 2-3, losing to both eventual AFC Championship Game teams and having just beaten the unbeaten Super Bowl Champs.

At no point during these 20 months did anyone even consider questioning the "cohesion" and "unity" of the Browns. Perhaps they questioned the moves (keeping DA, thin in the secondary, giving up the 08 draft), but no one questioned the unity. What happens next? Bad DA shows up for good, inexperienced coordinators go through their first taste of adversity while being led by a complete moron, 6 weeks later we’re putting a QBs coach under center.

Savage’s org didn’t become disjointed in 6 weeks. But fairweather, scapgoat seeking fans do.

by kwoog on Jan 29, 2009 11:52 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

unironic rec.

by DaytonDogg on Jan 30, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Winner.

by fwembt on Jan 30, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you’ve out-longed me here, so congratulations. what i will say is that savage made some good, ballsy moves (JT and Quinn first round), but he made more bad ones, and you actually overstate and/or misrepresent the actual events of some of the above. for example, the browns offered the most money for bentley, and savage basically completely blew the rogers deal until the bengals choked.

as well, i’d like to see your sources that show that dungy and tomlin (citing millen is a complete farce) praised the rogers and williams moves. not saying you’re lying, just would be interested to see that, b/c i don’t remember it.

the last thing i’ll say, and i’ve said it before, is that you can’t have it all ways. savage “shocked everyone” in going 10-6 all on his own, clearly, but “a complete moron” lead the way down to 4-12 this year. you actually argue against yourself on this front when you discuss losses to the AFC Champ teams. if you want to talk contributing factors, how about the fact that our “shocking” 10-6 season included 1 win against a team that finished the season with a winning record? romeo is not blameless; lerner is not blameless; but savage shoulders every ounce of the blame that the others do. you can’t be THE football guy for 4 years, go 24-40, and claim innocence.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jan 30, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Steelers of 07 had the same record and virtually the same schedule in 07.

I consider our season this year to be 4-7 for obvious reasons.

As for 24-40, the first two years don’t matter at all b/c it was a complete rebuild with no realistic expectations starting off. I would have taken back to back 0-16 seasons followed by 10-6 and then a deep playoff run this year, if you had offered it to me in 2004. So the underperformance happened this year and this year alone, more specifically wtf happened after the Giants game. That’s why I look to coaching.

by kwoog on Jan 30, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that quoting 24-40 as Savage’s record is unfair because of the terrible condition the team was in when he took over. The first two years were about building up the talent and in ‘07 it looked like the Browns had taken the next step. But they overachieved that year and probably weren’t as good as their record indicated, as shown by their realitively weak schedule. Then last year the team regressed and showed that there were still many holes on the team. I certainly agree that the coaching staff should take a good amount of the blame for the bad year in ‘08, but Savage also deserves blame for that. After four years, the team is built with mostly his players and he should be held responsible. Based solely on personnel alone I didn’t think Savage needed to be let go, but obviously there were other reasons for his firing and I don’t know enough to comment on those. I can say that there were certainly indications that there were problems in the organization.

I don’t really think it’s necessary to continue this debate — we all know how you feel, kwoog. Savage has been fired, the team has hired a new GM and coach, and let’s give them a few years to see how they perform. There’s no use rehashing these same arguments over and over again. If Kokinis fails, and Savage gets hired somewhere else and wins the Super Bowl, then you can say you were right. Until then, nobody knows.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 30, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How is it Savage’s fault if Romeo and company kept putting players in a position to fail?

Look at my first breakdown of the D, and skip all the way to the bottom. Terry Cousin covering Plaxico Burress is Savage’s fault? Phil Savage is at fault for poorly-designed blitzes?

The players we had in 08 do have talent. While not all of them do multiple things well (having players that do is very helpful to a coaching staff) most of them can at least do one thing well, even our really old veterans like McGinest. There are NOT that many holes on our team. We need another NFL quality WR (2 without Joe J), a quality NFL 3rd CB, and a stud pass rushing OLB (or 2 solid LBs who can rush the passer). That, combined with “solid” coaching or better would have gotten us to 10-6 again this year.

Savage was doing a good job at his job. He wasn’t a wizard, and he may have had problems where his job met up with others’ jobs, but someone stating that Savage deserves the same amount of blame for 08 as Crennel is out of their mind.

by rufio on Jan 30, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I never said Savage deserves the same amount of blame as Crennel. I was complaining about Romeo all year long, and I stated many times that I didn’t think Savage needed to go. But are you saying that Crennel deserves all of the blame for the problems this past year? That Savage gave him a great team and he destroyed it? I said Savage deserves some of the blame, and to think otherwise is silly. We can debate for weeks the amount of talent on this team, and different people on this site have different opinions, but Savage is not blameless for the problems last year.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 30, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was trying to limit the amount of comments I posted and really replying to this:

“but savage shoulders every ounce of the blame that the others do”

and not comments you made with that phrase, but I consolidated in a reply to your comment.

We weren’t Dallas, but we were capable of going at least 8-8, 9-7 and saving a few jobs this year with the players that we had. Our defensive philosophies, schemes, and plays were terrible. Terrible.

Is Phil blameless? No. Equal with Romeo? No way.

by rufio on Jan 30, 2009 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i’ll say that savage deserves the same amount of blame as romeo. absolutely. the reason that having terry cousin on plaxico burress is so shocking is b/c it’s terry freaking cousin! who else are we going to have cover him in a man situation? savage was 100% responsible for providing romeo w/ players (like terry cousin), and in this case he handed him a joke of a defensive backfield, holding eric wright aside. not to mention, the entire coaching staff, who seemed similarly incapable of getting results from the players, was hand selected by savage.

but this is a virtually unresolvable question. did romeo failing b/c savage gave him guys who can’t cut it? or did savage failing b/c romeo can’t coach ’em up? reasonable people can and do disagree about this.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jan 30, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How about McDonald, who seemed to do a good job against him on the Pool INT? Wright and McDonald are both able to make up for a lack of ideal height because they have good ball skills and can jump. Nick Sorensen is 6’3", and I doubt he would do a worse job than Cousin covering Plax in the endzone. Pool would be big for a CB and can cover pretty well, so he is another option (and Mike Adams could cover the deep zone).

We could have had Cousin cover 5’11" Manningham, 5’11" Steve Smith, or even 6’2" Hixon or 6’3" (but 33 year-old) Amani Toomer without the type of mismatch that was created by putting him on Plax.

On the TD play, we could have also either send those two spies at the QB and hit Manning so that he couldn’t have gotten a clean throw off, or dropped them in to coverage where Cousin could have relied on them for help. Having two guys in no man’s land is inexcusable. I don’t think you can blame that on the talent of our players.

If we line our #1CB up on their #1 WR, #2 on #2 and so on, Cousin might still be the weak link in the secondary, and he still might get picked on, and at that point, you can start to blame Savage over Romeo because Romeo is doing all he can do. BUT, if we made that switch defensively it would have done several things to make it tougher on the NYG. First, it would have knocked New York out of what they liked to do the most, and made them look to their 3rd and 4th options (kind of like double-teaming LeBron or Stephen Curry and seeing if the rest of the team can beat you when they aren’t used to scoring). Also, we eliminate such a glaring mismatch. Even if our #1CB is slightly less talented than their #1WR, our #2 slightly less talented than their #2, and so forth, that still makes Eli have to make good reads and perfect throws every time. The way we did it, Plax could beat Cousin so bad that it was easy for Manning to go there every time, and he could just loft the ball up in the air for Plax. We made it easy for them.

Brandon McDonald, Pool, and Sean Jones (who I believe was inactive for the Giants game) are all talented players—hardly a “joke”. Barring injury, Jones would have commanded big bucks in the FA market this year. McDonald had a few bad plays this year that stick out in a lot of people’s minds, but considering he was picked in the 5th round, he was an absolute steal (recently, it has been hard to find good CBs outside of the first and early second rounds). McDonald makes a lot of plays and not many mistakes. It’s just that this year when he made mistakes they resulted in memorable plays.

I don’t want to blame Romeo for the offense, but defense is supposed to be his specialty and he has won a lot of rings as a DC. He could have and should have overridden Tucker (if you are chalking up all of Tucker’s faults to Savage). You can tell on the film that our players have some talent. You can also tell that that talent wasn’t used correctly. THAT is Romeo’s fault.

by rufio on Jan 30, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough. But I didn’t post this FanPost, I only responded to it.

by kwoog on Jan 30, 2009 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The OBR now hilariously is going through a crisis in that they won’t be getting any information from the Mangini staff. How do they justify their high costs now?

by Roger Dorn on Jan 30, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They’re a joke. To cite them and only them, and then call it "every source" is specious at best and dishonest at worst.

What local media outlets are so much better? Mary Kay Kabot? Terry Pluto? Good god, we have to take what we can get. Besides, trying to discredit the source without discrediting the information is dubious at best.

It takes a cohesive organization with a unifying philosophy to identify your main target in free agency and swoop in and steal them from another team that wanted them badly and offered just as much if not more money (Baxter and Bentley).

It takes a cohesive organization with a unifying philosophy to make three picks and two draft trades within 2 hours of each other on draft day to get the top two players on your board, as well as a starting CB.

It takes a cohesive organization with a unifying philosophy to trade, within the first hours of the free agency period, a 2nd rounder, a starting CB and a 3rd rounder for one of the 3 best DT in the game and another highly talented DL who was so coveted by his team that he was franchised.

First, I never questioned the ends, I just pointed out that Savage was apparently burning bridges and operating in such a power-crazed manner so as to preclude his means as a sustainable means of making good football decisions – which he did time and time again before the situation detonated.

Next, it really doesn’t take a cohesive unit to make those singular decisions. All it takes is a strong leader. Savage was a strong leader – too strong by these accounts. Butch Davis made unilateral decisions but I don’t think you’d claim them as the result of a “cohesive organization”.

The organization he created received unanimously positive buzz in getting a franchise LT and QB in the same draft.

The franchise QB label is probably premature at this point.

The organization he created shocked everyone and went 10-6 in 2007.

The organization he created shocked everyone and went 4-12 in 2008. Can’t have it both ways. Regardless, none of this is about his football decisions. Even Lerner has said as much.

At no point during these 20 months did anyone even consider questioning the “cohesion” and “unity” of the Browns.

Man, those blinders must be nice. Let’s take the only successful period this organization had during the defendant’s tenure and make all of our judgements on that 20 months. That makes sense.

Crennel went into the 2007 with his seat on fire. At that time there was no indication whatsoever that Savage was on the hot seat as well. Your coach is one misstep from being fired, and your GM is sitting pretty, and that sounds like “cohesion” and “unity” to you? Que? Then throughout the 2008 season the obvious disconnect between the HC and GM becomes public REPEATEDLY and you’re defending the unity of the organization?

And let’s just ignore the precursor to all of this – the Collins incident. I was all for ousting the marketing guy in favor of Savage – what football fan wouldn’t be? Hindsight being 20/20 – that was a strong indicator of what to expect in the future – Savage’s seemingly glaring inability to work well with others.

Savage’s org didn’t become disjointed in 6 weeks.

No, it took four years of Savage for the organization to reach boiling point.

But fairweather, scapgoat seeking fans do.

I’m not sure how I’m “disjointed” and I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single poster in here that could be called “fairweather” accurately. Fairweather fans disappear when the organization is in turmoil, they don’t post ridiculously long comments in a Browns forum trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it in February. Also, am I the scapegoat? Then why is the mailman wearing the bucket?

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 1, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

This.

by joeee on Feb 1, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet Seinfeld reference.

Obviously I disagree with pretty much every sentence in this post. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree, unless you really want me to respond.

Go Browns.

by kwoog on Feb 1, 2009 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am curious, why do you think Savage was fired?

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 2, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That idiot Trent Dilfer said that the Browns organization was dysfunctional and way too reactive to what the fans want. Obviously I don’t think that was the case with Savage (he made risky, cogent moves that no fan could see coming, whether you agree with them or not), and I think it was partly the case with Crennel. But I think it’s 100% the case with Lerner. I think the only reason Savage won the power struggle with Collins was b/c of the huge amount of support he received from the fans. I think that if this season the fan email hadn’t happened, or if the low level PR staffer had never texted Winslow (or if the fans just treated these events as what they were, non-issues), the fanbase in Cleveland wouldn’t be so irrationally against Savage’s decidedly successful first few years on the job. They’d be more willing to let a 41 year old man who has had some success learn from his mistakes in the first 48 months on the job, and decidedly less patient with a 65 year old man whose shortcomings are so apparent and totally football related. And we’d all be exhaling relief that the worst strategic coach in the league was no longer leading our team. Instead, we’d be getting excited for the Rex Ryan era, and instead of guessing/hoping we’d know that we were about to install an agressive 3-4.

In a word, Lerner fired him b/c of PR after a disappointing season. This is not the way stable organizations are run. Every single successful regime in this league says one thing unanimously: you have to have stability.

by kwoog on Feb 2, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and trying to “have it both ways” has been charged a couple times against me. This is false. Crennel did a horrible job coaching in 2007. We went 10-6 in spite of him. Whether it’s the coin flip atmosphere he created in the preseason, choosing Frye, or even letting DA air it out at the end of that first half in the Bengals game, Romeo displayed the same stupid tendencies that year as he did this year.

So I’m not trying to have it both ways. I don’t care what happened in the rebuild in 05 and 06. Crennel had an awful 07 and an awful 08. Savage had an amazing 07 and an above average 08.

by kwoog on Feb 2, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Above average 08? Was he realistically evaluating our ’08 chances when he took the “win-now” approach of dealing future draft picks? I would argue that a more prescient GM might expect ’08 to be a regression year and not bet the farm on a quicky playoff run.

by joeee on Feb 2, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s completely false to characterize Savage’s approach as “win-now”, as I explained long ago.

by kwoog on Feb 2, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with this.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 2, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Average age of, let’s say, the offense, is a good indicator of future strength. But you didn’t compare it to the rest of the league in a meaningful way – you just called doubters “crazy” without comping the rest of the league. I’m actually curious about this point. Also age needs context on a position basis.

And age along doesn’t satisfy your argument. Don’t draft picks build the stable of depth? Doesn’t free agency tie up cap room for years to come?

by joeee on Feb 3, 2009 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Savage signed exactly one Free Agent starter this past offseason, Stalworth. Rogers was under contract for 3 more years and Williams was so highly regarded by his team that they denied him FA, franchised him and agreed to pay him top 5 money in the world for him to do his job. Savage is not Dan Snyder.

If Savage was in “win now mode” he would have traded a high 09 pick for Secondary help last year after Holly went down. He was never in “win now mode” so he didn’t. I don’t care about a 7th round pick that was dealt later on for another warm body in the Secondary. The 3rd and 5th round picks were dealt b/c Savage thought both Bell and Rucker were starters in this league. He mentioned over and over that having been so decisive in getting Rogers/Williams, he could direct his staff to spend more time on the later rounds than any other team in football. I read Bell was rated second round by Savage’s scouts.

And all this doesn’t take into account the rational assumption that as long as the season didn’t blow up completely, we’d be in line to get a first or second rounder from either Quinn or Anderson, since it was overtly acknowldeged by Phil that they probably couldn’t co-exist for three years. If Phil was in “win now mode” he would have traded a first or second rounder in 09 for a CB, and justified it later by dealing a QB. But he wasn’t. Savage’s plan was always to be loaded w/ high pics in 09, coming off a hopefully winning season from a young club in 08. As for your point about depth, it’s a luxury that you can’t have until you have solidified starters. The defensive line from 07 was not NFL caliber, so Savage addressed it. I believe attention to depth was coming w/ (presumably) 3 of the first 60 picks in the 09 draft.

by kwoog on Feb 3, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some nice points, but I think you’re arguing the complement of a lot of his moves. Like, yes, Savage could’ve done more to derail Browns future, but he still took some big gambles on it. How do you figure “loaded with high pics in 09”? I am fuzzy on this: it is my understanding that Savage received offers for DA (a guy he had the foresight to pick off scrap-heap, kudos to him for that) last year. Who is to say that DA’s ’08 performance was a sure bet? Gambling on him netting you a ton of draft picks the next year is, well as I said earlier, myopic, or at least incredibly dangerous.

by joeee on Feb 3, 2009 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d call it low risk. Obviously we’d all love to have the first and third rounder it sounds like we could have had. But going into this season we had a 25 year old pro bowl QB and a 1st round pick QB. If you keep them in the 08 off season, I don’t think it’s myopic to “risk” that you’re most likely going to get at least a 2nd rounder (and more likely a 1) for one of them in the 09 season. That’s how I get loaded w/ pics in 09 (our own that Savage refused to deal, and the product of a QB trade).

Perhaps Savage should have “sold high”, etc, but then you’re debating strategy/effectiveness, not ends. One could argue a “win now” approach would have necessitated dealing one of the QBs for immediate help (though I understand keeping both was thought of as security for 08).

In the end my point is Savage most certainly had an eye on the 2010-13 seasons.

by kwoog on Feb 3, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There’s really not a lot I disagree with here. I’m with you 100% that Crennel was infinitely worse than Savage. I was personally surprised that Savage was fired. Considering how everything has played out, I have zero faith in Lerner, although I obviously hope this next FO works out.

That said, I disagree this was a PR move. Savage was still popular with a lot of the fanbase. One little PR rep could have handled the email nonsense and the Winslow situation – these are in my mind, as you say, non-issues.

The information quoted, however, indicates that Savage was fired because these issues were just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. To me, it makes sense, it fits, that Savage was fired because of a pattern of unprofessional and/or ego-maniacal moves. In other words, he was acting like Parcells or Belichick without the rings.

Here’s my speculation:

It seems like he saw the basic requirements for what this organization needed to do, had his mind set on how that needed to unfold, and did it all himself. While there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that approach, there just wasn’t enough of a support system to clean up the damage that it caused. It seems that if Savage had a team of people that he trusted than some of the issues that were being ignored could have been addressed and the FO could have worked more smoothly. For whatever reason (be it that there was no one he trusted or it just wasn’t provided), that wasn’t the case.

Savage was fired because he offered no means of remedying the situation. He likely wanted to continue down the path he was on, with a coach and coordinators of his choosing. I think I would have been happier with this approach. As I said, I liked his moves, save for the Wimbley over Ngata pick. Well, I didn’t like letting Anthony Henry go either, but that’s just nit-picking.

The whole point of this post, however, was to point out that Savage was not fired because of the W-L record and especially not for personnel moves. He was fired because Lerner was not comfortable with the way the FO was being run. “Sources” have claimed the FO was in “chaos” and full of mistrust, egos, and personal agendas. If that’s the case, and I think there’s probably truth to that, than he was fired because of that. If not, it was a PR move. I posted this so people would stop pointing to the W-L record (or worse the personnel moves) as the reason he got canned, because it’s stupidity.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 2, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. If the description laid out by the O&B is accurate to a high degree, then I’m glad he’s gone and that really is the end of the story.

I just remember him saying that there was “total concensus” to do the Rogers/Williams moves this offseason, and the “name on the door” stuff, and the excitement from seemingly everyone… scouts, players, couches, FO, fans… and I find these accusations to be far from definitive. Especially when they only came up so quickly.

Earlier I think you asked what local media we should trust, and I will say without a hint of sarcasm, “none.” I mean, Grossi can’t even pronounce our RB’s first name. All these guys, PD, ABJ, O&B just want a story to be there and they press and insinuate and interview whoever it is that will give them a scoop. See the varying “reports” about Mangini’s popularity/non-popularity with Jets players.

by kwoog on Feb 2, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Pluto. Mary Kay is alright. Grossi isn’t horrible. The WKNR guys cover the team ok.

You gotta remember though, that these Cleveland football beat reporters have had a weird career. As it is in many NFL cities, their job is almost closer to covering a political administration than a sports team. They have been trained to look skeptically to the company line. Add this to the very weak PR capabilities of each of the football regimes over the last 10 years, and you get what you get.

It’s not just the local guys either. I’ve seen wacko stories about our team from Mortensen, John Clayton never seems to know what to say about the Browns.

I’m not entirely sure what I’m trying to say here. Something is certainly semi-unique about covering the Browns. Especially when compared to the Cavs and the Indians. I was listening to Tony Rizzo’s radio show when they had the press conferences regarding the coaching change. His theme throughout that week was how weird everything felt to the reporters. Press conferences with no real person leading it. Lerner taking questions with reporters with no cameras or recorders in the room. No face of the organization. Was Lerner even at the press conference introducing Mangini??

If the Cavs replaced their head coach, you know that there would be a press conference. Dan Gilbert would be there answering questions and telling us why it was the right move, why the hired the guy. Danny Ferry would be introducing him. Heck, LeBron and Z might be there to get the player’s perspective. Same with the Indians- they’d have a presser just to introduce a new player and Shapiro would handle it, as the face of the organization.

Oh well. Hopefully that face for the Browns becomes Eric Mangini for the next 10 years. Hopefully he and Kokinis are able to normalize some of these issues. Hopefully they are able to do so more professionally than Savage, who apparently wasn’t capable of dealing with these non-football duties. I can’t say I’m optimistic- calling the Steelers game as “just another game”doesn’t smack of Cleveland Browns PR brilliance. But, for know, I remain hopeful.

by DaytonDogg on Feb 3, 2009 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He was fired because Lerner was not comfortable with the way the FO was being run.

I don’t disagree with this statement. I disagree with Lerner’s decision because of it. To me it is just as troublesome as if Savage got fired for personnel decisions. The Browns have had a culture of failure and hired Savage to change that. Lerner didn’t like the way Savage went about implementing that change. If the record was bad last year, he would have been fired last year. Lerner was just waiting for the opportunity to fire Savage.

Change is hard dirty work. It’s easy to talk about and very difficult to implement because people will always resist it.

Now, I know this is my opinion as to what was going on within the organization and I know I may be wrong. I have this impression because my profession (management consultant) requires the existence of dysfunctional organizations or I wouldn’t have a job, so I’ve seen many mediocre organizations and observed their culture. I’ve seen people fight the status quo of mediocrity and fail. Some have hired very successful outsiders to try and change the culture, and every single time the outsiders were either fired or quit on their own after failing to implement that change.

I also believe that Savage isn’t without fault. I also understand that Savage may not actually have been the best man for this job due to his Belichickian nature. I’m frustrated by the fact that I feel he wasn’t given a fair chance. I’m frustrated by the fact that everyone thinks this year was a complete disaster rather than just another year of missed playoffs. I’m frustrated by the fact that I feel that if we won the superbowl next year everyone will say it was due to the FO and coaching change when 95% of the players will be the players Savage brought in. Most of all, I’m frustrated by the fact that I can’t escape the feeling that we will repeat these same discussions in 4 years when Mangini’s Belichickian nature wares thin just as Savage’s has.

by dvd1204 on Feb 3, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This.

by kwoog on Feb 3, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the record was bad last year, he would have been fired last year.

I’m really not sure about that. Savage was hugely popular before the 2007 season, and if 2007 went poorly it would easily have been blamed on Crennel. The only way I see Savage getting fired after a poor 2007 season is if the city lost faith in the possibility that Quinn could be any good. If he starts from day one and totally sucks, then maybe Savage would have lost enough support to get canned. Maybe.

Most of all, I’m frustrated by the fact that I can’t escape the feeling that we will repeat these same discussions in 4 years when Mangini’s Belichickian nature wares thin just as Savage’s has.

Amen.

Carmona for Cy Young 2009

by danvail on Feb 3, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“That idiot Trent Dilfer…”

Always brings out a chuckle when you hear that.

Dawgs By Nature - Find out why Pittsburgh still sucks.

by ChrisPokorny on Feb 3, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On a somewhat related note, I was listening to the Reghi show (thank the Lord for no more Munch) when the topic of the Browns hiring process was raised with Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports. He cited “sources” from all over the league that panned both the people hired and the manner in which it was done.

Robinson went on to say that Mangini had essentially created a feeling of distrust between himself and the players and himself and the front office. He became a man with no allies, caught between two parties. Robinson felt that it was the way that Mangini handled his relationships that caused most of the problems in the Jets organization. Great.

Robinson was a bit more kind to Kokinis. He did question how much power the GM position would actually have and whether Kokinis was capable of handling any amount of real decision making. He asked, as is the rest of the football world, why the hiring had seem to be done in reverse order. Robinson closed by saying that the Browns organization is something of a laughingstock around the NFL right now.

That’s just his opinion and I don’t agree with all of it, but I thought this was as good a place as any to put it.

by fwembt on Jan 30, 2009 11:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Living in New York, I have actually listened to a number of interviews with Jets players who mostly have had great things to say about their former coach and were surprised that he was let go

by Roger Dorn on Jan 30, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Brad Smith was on that very same radio show and was nothing but supportive of Mangini. He really hedged on any Favre questions, which struck me as very interesting.

by fwembt on Jan 31, 2009 3:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You should trust whatever Brad Smith says. Anyone with that name must be really, really smart.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 31, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also anyone that went to Missouri is the man

by Roger Dorn on Jan 31, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to echo this point. I’ve been listening to a lot of NY sports talk radio and the issue with the Jets really seems to be Favre vs. the rest of the team. He distanced himself from the rest of the team and then when he played terribly in December, Mangini became the scapegoat. Management wants to keep Favre around because of ticket sales and general excitement with the team

by Roger Dorn on Jan 31, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As much as people criticized the Mangini hiring, and how quickly Lerner acted in hiring him, it may be that the Browns got a really good coach who got caught up in a bad situation in NY that was out of his control. We may look back on this move in a few years as a blessing that the Browns were able to get this guy. I think it’s good that we got a guy with experience as a head coach in the NFL and can learn from his past mistakes and successes.

Or he could suck, and the Browns could continue to lose, and Lerner is an idiot once again.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 31, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See, no one would have said that about the Browns as recently as October 18th.

by kwoog on Jan 30, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Jets won 9 games and if it weren’t for a meltdown from their old QB, they would have made the playoffs. The Jets played solid football and disciplined football. I would have taken that performance over the crapfest we saw last year from the Browns

Why haven’t the Broncos been criticized for hiring a coach first and a GM second? It’s a huge double standard

by Roger Dorn on Jan 30, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn’t a whole host of Jets players meet Mangini at their complex to say goodbye when they weren’t expected to?

How would you play the situation if Brett Favre was thrust in to your lap?

If you support him 100%, you make the FO happy, but whoever was a Pennington/Clemens supporter in the locker room now hates you. Also, you lose everyone that Favre rubbed the wrong way by keeping distance from his teammates (Thomas Jones et al after the season) and by not training with them.

If you come out against the Favre move, you piss off the FO. You also piss off Favre (who just happens to play the most important position on the field and is always a threat to instantaneously retire and leave ESPN with no summer NFL headlines), and you also piss off anyone in the locker room also on his side.

How are you to have a united locker room in that situation?

I am sure Mangini’s personality caused most of those problems.

What is important about the GM-coach relation is that they get along and they both know that the GM has the final say. That is why the GM usually picks the coach. There is no logical reason why the order of the hiring should matter if both of those conditions are met. The moment Kokinis says “you know what, Eric, I appreciate that you have told me your preferences for player X over player Y, but I still disagree and will go with player Y because it is in the best interest of this organization”, the order in which the two was hired doesn’t mean a damn thing.

by rufio on Jan 30, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs