Dawgs By Nature: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Interview With UMD Athletic Director, Dr. Debbie Yow

Cleveland Browns Coach Eric Mangini: Good Guy or Not, He Is Still Very Shady

Written by Daniel Wolf

 

Cleveland Browns head coach Eric Mangini has been seen in a negative light for much of the 2009 NFL regular season, and for good reasons, but despite his positively-portrayed nature, his is still very shady in the things he does regarding football matters.

So Mangini has tried to bring a positive light onto himself the last several weeks with exclusive interviews with SI.com and this past weekend on The NFL Today , with host James Brown.

In these two interviews, Mangini seems like he is a normal, down to earth, stand-up guy who is also married and a father.

Sadly, once he puts on a headset and his Browns working attire, he goes straight to Mr. Hyde.

Over the last several years, Mangini has been part of many shady events, including: ratting out his former mentor, lying to the NFL, and calling out other coaches.

To read more, click here.

0 recs  |  Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

this is terrible. i guess i’ll try and go through point by point.
1. it is not shady for mangini to tell on belichick, he was cheating, which put the jets at a competitive disadvantage. anybody would have done that.
2. first of all, favre was the QB two seasons AFTER spygate, so already this article seems poorly researched. i also don’t think this was as big a deal as it was made out to be. brett favre was going to play every week, and everyone knew it. everyone also knew he was broken down by the end of the season, its not like it was a secret.
3. things like this happen every week. and personally, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the lions were faking on purpose. maybe mangini shouldn’t have said anything publicly, but i hardly think this event was “shady”
4. he has been investigated AND FOUND INNOCENT OF ANY WRONGDOING in the injury to james davis earlier this year. just because someone was investigated for something doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.
5. he didn’t stab his friend in the back. lerner was clear the entire time that mangini would not be fired during the season, so the notion that mangini threw his friend under the bus to save his job is completely unfounded. all reports are that kokinis refused to work with anyone and had essentially quit doing his job. you would get fired from your job too if you quit doing it, and it wouldn’t be the fault of the guy who got you the job in the first place.
6. why is it shady that he deals with his former team? he knows those players really well and they know his systems. it makes perfect sense for him to make those types of deals, and again, that type of thing happens all over the nfl.

this is a clear attempt at a smear piece that quite frankly wasn’t researched, used no factual evidence, and basically boiled down to a series of unsupported claims that mangini is dishonest and somehow a bad person.

criticize football decisions all you want, there are certainly good points to be made concerning the teams poor performance, but this is ridiculous.

by notthatnoise on Nov 25, 2009 10:12 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

oops, favre was the QB 1 season after, not 2. still though, the point remains.

by notthatnoise on Nov 25, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

1. it is not shady for mangini to tell on belichick, he was cheating, which put the jets at a competitive disadvantage. anybody would have done that.

It was shady. I am sure that Bilichick was doing this when Mangini was in New England. Mangini was benefiting from the cheating in NE, parlayed it into a HC gig and then narcs on the old team? C’Mon, that is textbook shady.

3. things like this happen every week. and personally, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the lions were faking on purpose. maybe mangini shouldn’t have said anything publicly, but i hardly think this event was "shady"

I agree. It was stupid for him to say anything, but teams do this crap all the time, mostly against the Colts.

4. he has been investigated AND FOUND INNOCENT OF ANY WRONGDOING in the injury to james davis earlier this year. just because someone was investigated for something doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

Yes he was cleared in the James Davis situation. I have not heard the same for Keith Grennan. Not to mention that the NFLPA is investigating the Browns.

5. he didn’t stab his friend in the back. lerner was clear the entire time that mangini would not be fired during the season, so the notion that mangini threw his friend under the bus to save his job is completely unfounded. all reports are that kokinis refused to work with anyone and had essentially quit doing his job. you would get fired from your job too if you quit doing it, and it wouldn’t be the fault of the guy who got you the job in the first place.

I don’t know if I would call it shady, but it isn’t a great sign when a HC hand picks his own GM and cannot work with him. There was a massive mis-communication at some point in time. That is partly Mangini’s fault.

6. why is it shady that he deals with his former team? he knows those players really well and they know his systems. it makes perfect sense for him to make those types of deals, and again, that type of thing happens all over the nfl.

Right. I still think we sold low on Edwards (No, I am not trying to start that debate again.) but I have loved Trusnik so far and the draft day trade was awesome. Mack is a gangster.

by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 25, 2009 10:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not to mention that the NFLPA is investigating the Browns.

Can we please stop using the mere existence of an investigation as if it’s definitive proof of guilt?

Overall, I find the referenced article to be mostly tepid half-assed rehashings of things we’ve already talked about in depth and with better analysis here on DBN. Not worth the time it took to read.

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 25, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Can we please stop using the mere existence of an investigation as if it’s definitive proof of guilt?

I didn’t. But if there is only one team in the NFL that is being investigated, that is worth mentioning here. There is a difference.

by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 25, 2009 11:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I must have missed something with grennan, i’ve never even heard that name before, whats the situation there?

by notthatnoise on Nov 26, 2009 9:02 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

He was a DE on the practice squad. Blew out his knee a few weeks ago during an ‘opportunity session’.

by golanbatrac on Nov 26, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

well if davis got injured during one of those sessions and the league cleared mangini i’m going to assume for now that he will be cleared in this as well. i could be wrong of course, but i’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

by notthatnoise on Nov 26, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Unless they find a problem with the opportunity sessions, I doubt anything comes of it.

by Roger Dorn on Nov 26, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

right, and as the opportunity sessions were already cleared in the case involving davis, i have to assume they will be here as well.

by notthatnoise on Nov 26, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

….if there is only one team in the NFL that is being investigated, that is worth mentioning here. There is a difference.

Maybe so, although I still think of it as guilt-by-charge. I have to admit that I don’t know much about the NFLPA. Anyone know good primer on them? They had some personnel changes at the top this year, didn’t they?

It is a little funny that Googling ‘NFLPA investigation’ turns up a lot about how the NFLPA is under Federal investigation for colluding to have off the record meetings with NFL officials on labor issues. Not that this means anything particularly of course.

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 26, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i’ll give you spygate, i can see why people think thats shady, i just think anyone would have done it. and don’t get me wrong, i do blame mangini quite a bit for the kokinis failure, i just don’t think he “stabbed his friend in the back” to save his job. I think the firing was mostly related to job performance.

by notthatnoise on Nov 26, 2009 9:07 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

What I don’t get about the whole spygate business is why it all falls on Mangini. The Jets were loaded, top to bottom, with former Pats, including GM Tannenbaum. Why not blame him?

by golanbatrac on Nov 26, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

My take on spygate is that Mangini knew of the practice and assumed that Belichik wouldn’t go on videotaping the Jets since Mangini could easily call him out. For Belichik to do it anyway shows a frightening amount of arrogance and disrespect to Mangini and Mangini was probably like, “OK jackass, I have to turn you in.”

I probably would have done the same thing. Why would Belichik videotape the Jets when he knew that Mangini knew that Belichik did those things?

by Roger Dorn on Nov 26, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Belichik probably didn’t think he had the Kahones.

Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.

by SpecialBrownie on Nov 26, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And then he actually did. Heh. Actually, this interpretation makes me feel better about Mangini. Not that I think we’ll ever know exactly how all this went down, but it’s interesting to speculate!

by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 26, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah since the league burned all that evidence we’ll never really know what happened

by notthatnoise on Nov 26, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah that was a pretty weak move by the NFL.

I would have loved to have seen how much they taped.

by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 26, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree. I don’t think he stabbed anyone in the back, but the situation is beyond foolish.

Kokinis deserves blame for not seeing the writing on the wall. Mangini deserves blame for not chooisng a more willing canidate and Lerner desereves blame for letting this situation happen.

by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 26, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I recomment the notthatnoise´s defense of Eric Mangini.
Here is mine:
1. Mangini honestly commented on the New England Patriot´s policies regarding use of video.
- Eric Mangini gave a conscientious statement to an NFL legal squad, to prevent perjury. Most people think he could have toppled the Patriots franchise.
2. Mangini failed to properly assess Brett Favre´s injury.
- Eric Mangini delegated the responsibility towards designating players for the injury report, and showed character in taking the hit.
3. Mangini blamed the Lions players for leaving the field, to affect the clock.
- TV couldn´t go to commercials and had problems controling the format and time frame of the broadcast, so they prompted the AP to scrutinize Mangini and Schwartz. No coach in his right mind would critique players´ reactions upon injury, if it wasn´t clearly evident that they were faking it. I read this as a cautionary by Eric Mangini towards his own team.
4. Mangini was blamed by players from his team, that training sessions aimed to give backup players an opportunity to make the starting lineup, resulted in injury. Furthermore his players went to the media and an NFL authority in trying to assert Eric Mangini´s practices are too harsh for professional football players, thus forcing him to defend his standpoint.
- Eric Mangini is being nice, by not calling out these players for disloyalty. There is no standard for NFL practices. To do so would further impede coaches´ liberties.
5. This assertion is yours WOLF. You claim Eric Mangini backstabbed his friend and colleague George Kokinis to save his own job.
- George Kokinis was supposedly mobbed and impeded in his professional competence. Eric Mangini acted as a friend, in preventing him from further hardships.
6. Mangini is somehow fraudulent for dealing with his former employer the New York Jets.
- Eric Mangini accepted collateral, in trading down to get Alex Mack. He has seen some of these players close-up, which puts him at an advantage to judge their potential towards the Browns, they are risk free signees because he can trust his own scouting. The Jets is a very nice destination for Braylon Edwards.
7. And I think you´re also asserting this, WOLF: Mangini only acts like a good guy. And that he is a shifty character, who is unpredictable in his pursuit of fame and fortune.
- Eric Mangini is high character. There is too much aggravation in Cleveland, to claim a guy is in it for personal gain and aggrandizement.
But I must also laud you WOLF, for corralling points of contention against Eric Mangini. It´s a good heads up.

by mooncamping on Nov 27, 2009 7:12 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good reply Moon.

Fooootball has been beary beary good to me.

by doggrad87 on Nov 27, 2009 9:21 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

thanks for the recommendation

by notthatnoise on Nov 27, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

agree with just about all of that. just because the guy isn’t a lovable teddy bear like romeo doesn’t mean he’s an evil prick either. and how does mangini get the blame for belichick’s unethical behavior? never really understood that one.

by Dawg Nuts on Nov 27, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Romeo was also quite likable. What are the chances of getting him back?
You all know my standpoints.
I would welcome Lou Holtz for head coach in an instant, no joke.
And I think Eric Mangini belongs in our front office, minus the crew he brought with him.
Randy Lerner is a decent Big O, with honest aspirations. We just need him to take more responsibility in making decisions, including personnel. And get him to be a public figure, it´s just so much easier with a vocal main team representative. Considering he has the purse strings, there isn´t much he couldn´t do in terms of team transformation.

by mooncamping on Nov 27, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i thought mangini was slated to be our main team representative, but that doesn’t seem to have worked well. it might as well be lerner.

and no thanks on romeo. likable, yes. good HC, no.

by Dawg Nuts on Nov 28, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Isn´t he a defensive line coach originally? That´s what he played in college, transitioning into coaching at that position.
Maybe he wants to coach the defensive line. He represents the “before”, maybe it would make sense in favor of progressiveness to employ him.
I´ve stated this before, if we can get these guys (Mangini, Crennel…Jim Brown even) without handles and crew attending, it would be highly beneficial.

by mooncamping on Nov 29, 2009 7:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Lou Holtz? Are you nuts.

by Grockcubs on Nov 29, 2009 8:51 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Whether I´m nuts is beside the point. The point is Lou Holtz is nuts enough to do it.

by mooncamping on Nov 29, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.

Community Guidelines
Send us a Scoop

Start posting about the Browns »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Brown-ratterman_small
Brown: The Real Color of the Super Bowl

Recent FanPosts

Awesome_small
7 ROUND Browns Mock Draft
42867-mcgahee_1_small
Bill Parcells' Guide to Rebuilding the Browns
Otto_small
Ravens Owner disses Cleveland
019_small
New Salary Structure
Hahahame_small
Keep an Eye on the Vernon Gholston Situation.
Hahahame_small
A gameplan for the Browns' draft.
Otto_small
A case for trading Josh Cribbs
Logo_ksu1_small
2010 Pro Bowl
Small
The Dreaded Bottlegate

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Browns Links


Executive Editor

Dbn_small Chris Pokorny

Moderators

Pryor_small Buckeye Brad