Parcells to become Cleveland Czar?
by BrownDawg1409 on Nov 28, 2009 8:44 PM EST
251 comments
Keep in mind, this is just one of the many rumors out there.
It's been said by people close to Bill Parcells that he's been contacted by the Browns to take over as THEIR new head of football operations and that he's shown some interest. As farfetch'd as it sounds, it makes a certain amount of sense.
Jim Brown was quoted as saying "Lerner is talking to one of the greatest minds of football as we speak". He never specified who it was. Holmgren has said that Lerner has not talked to him yet but that he is interested in the Cleveland job.
Parcells has a history of going all over the league and turning terrible franchises into legitimate contenders (i.e. Giants, Cowboys, Dolphins, Patriots). He's essentially become the guy who can DO ANYTHING. It's possible that he could see Cleveland as his chance to turn around a franchise so bad that bringing it success would finalize his name as the greatest in NFL history.
Here's the kicker: Parcells' current contract allows him to quit anytime he chooses AND continue to be paid. This means that he would have no contractual obligation what-so-ever to remain with Miami if things became sour.
The chance to get Parcells would also explain why the Browns havn't jumped on Holmgren. If Parcells becomes Cleveland's Czar, their's a greater chance Mangini hangs around (the Belichik connection) as opposed to Holmgren who would want his own guy coaching. This may also increase the chances of bringing in Weiss as our OC.
HOWEVER, if Parcells says "Thanks, but no thanks", the Browns may end up missing their chance to grab Holmgren as he may have a better offer elsewhere. So which is it? Roll the dice on Parcells? Or take Holmgren now?
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
0 recs |
251 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Lets see Miami, Cleveland, Miami, Cleveland. 77 in the winter, 23 in the winter. Horse tracks in Florida year round, Horse tracks in Ohio?
I bet Parcells stays in Miami.
The hunting in Ohio though, is second to none. He lived in New York almost all his life. He won’t be afraid of a cold weather state.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 29, 2009 1:15 AM EST up reply actions
i don’t really think we risk much by waiting, hasn’t holmgren said he’s going to wait until the end of the season because he wants to see what jobs are out there?
That might help.
Just a little.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 29, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Because said old man thinks that he can fix anything and would solidify himself as one of the greatest football minds period if he turns around Cleveland in a single season.
by BrownDawg1409 on Nov 29, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
first of all, bill parcells has been in many cold weather cities, i don’t think it bothers him. secondly, this is 2009. he could get all of his work done from somewhere else in the country. his job doesn’t necessitate him being in cleveland all the time. we have telephones, tv, and the internet you know.
by notthatnoise on Nov 30, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions
Ego?
Parcells though probably would be too good to be true. But he’s exactly what we need: An experienced football manager with a reputation to put on the line to boot.
by Western Reserve on Nov 30, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
Cleveland > Miami
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 30, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i don’t care who comes as long as they have previous experience, can draft well, and are actually capable of fixing this mess.
If you don’t mind me asking, why the love for Mangini?
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 29, 2009 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
1. I like what he’s done in the draft.
2. I like what he did (or more to the point, didn’t do) in free agency.
3. I like the trades he’s made.
4. I didn’t come into this season thinking we were going to win games this year.
5. Mangini has a philosophy, and that philosophy has been applied consistently to player acquisition, practice, preparation, and game planning.
6. The last thing we need is to blow shit up again.
by golanbatrac on Nov 30, 2009 12:55 AM EST up reply actions
I never liked the Mangini hire. I didn’t understand why the Browns rushed out to hire a guy who was just poop canned from his last job. I know that people get re-hired all the time but I have a hard time remembering the last time a coach choked down the stretch, fired, and was rehired before the ink was dry on his pink slip.
I liked the trade down of the number 5 pick. But the fact that his two second rounders cannot find the field is not good. The fact that we lost Carey because someone in the Browns front office doesn’t understand waiver rules is also beyond dumb.
As with any team, his draft right now is an incomplete. I love Mack. I think MoMass has potential. Miavia may be a decent player. Other than that, we will see.
As for points 4 and 5, I didn’t think that we were going to be world beaters either. (I predicted 5 wins). But I sure as hell expected to be in almost all games. That has not happened. In fact, outside of three games we have been in laughers.
I think that blowing sh*t up may be just what this team/organization/city/fan base needs.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 30, 2009 1:45 AM EST up reply actions
you make that collapse sound like his fault. thats why he got rehired so quickly, everyone knew brett favre ruined that season, not mangini.
by notthatnoise on Nov 30, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions
Mangini is the coach. He makes the calls.
He knew that Favre was hurt. He saw that he was killing them. Yet he sat by and watched Favre throw the ball 43, 31, 30, 31 and 40 times.
Instead of using Thomas Jones, the AFC’s leading rusher last season (Jones had 16, 10, 20, 17 and 10 carries in the above games) he let the offense go through Favre. That isn’t on Favre, that is on Mangini.
Yes, Favre played poorly at the end of last season. But Mangini’s game planning was a major factor in their collapse.
So once again, hiring Mangini so quickly after he was canned, was a major mistake by Lerner. After all, we kept hearing how Mangini was oing to learn from his mistakes. Yet here we are watching the worst OC in football run the same 10 plays over and over, yet Mangini does nothing.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 30, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Yea, in both cases Mangini has ceded control of offensive playcalling to the O coordinator, but the judgment issue comes into question. Shouldn’t it be obvious that the playcalling is terrible in both situations?
This is my thinking.
If a HC can see that something is not working, it becomes his job to make whatever changes necessary, including sometimes firing a coordinator, to make a better gameplan and team. Haley did it in KC, Morris did it in Tampa.
Mangini has failed to do this twice. It cost the Jets a playoff berth, and it should cost him his job here in Cleveland.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 30, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
My personal feeling is that Mangini likes the gameplan, but thinks that we don’t have the talent to execute it. I only partially agree. I do not think we have the talent to execute the gameplan as he believes, but I also think the gameplan is atrocious.
I’m probably a little closer to golanbatrac. Especially his points 1-3. His strengths seem to be personnel moves. But that is only part of coaching, and if we are bringing in a Homgren type, that is going to get taken out of his hands. And that my real fascination with this situation. The person that makes the decision whether Mangini stays or goes should not be Lerner. It has to be someone that recognizes Mangini’s football strengths and weaknesses and decide whether it fits that person’s standards for a head coach and style.
I want this football czar to be someone that I can just trust to make this decision. Hopefully, that is the case.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 30, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
I think that anyone brought in as a GM/President is going to want thier own HC.
If Lerner is serious about hiring a new Czar, then Mangini is a HC on borrowed time right now.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 30, 2009 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Golanbatrac, you are now officially my favorite poster (after Chris, of course).
by BrownDawg1409 on Nov 30, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
I still don’t see how anyone could just love what he did in the draft. We got Mack… Okay what else came out of the draft?
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 1, 2009 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
I like what I’ve seen from Massaquoi, Maiva, Davis. I really expect them to play big roles on this team for years to come. What’s more, Elam and Coleman have been solid contributors. I’m still intrigued by Francies.
That was a good draft.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I’l concede with MoMass just for the fact that he’s not inactive like Robo. Davis had a decent preseason and thats about as relevant as saying Detroit went undefeated in their preseason(which is pretty darn irrelevant). Maiava has been averaging like 6 tackles a game since starting but thats irrelevant IMO since whats more important is where those tackles are taking place, not the number. And they mostly takes place down the field, not near the line of scrimmage. So what is it you like so much about him?
Elam on the other hand has allowed the middle of our secondary to be carved like the turkey you enjoyed last week. Calvin Johnson completely smoked him last week on a double move and though he has a number of tackles, its not a good thing when your safety is making tackles in the secondary. Coleman is a position player, so I’ll give you that. And what exactly intrigues you about Francies?
So when I look at the draft I see Mack, who is very solid, but a good Center on average O-line isn’t much help. MoMass who doesn’t have any tools to be a #1 but may be good for 700-900 yards a year down the line, and Coleman who wouldn’t start on a lot of teams, but would be servicable for depth.
Most importantly you can’t make a team up of “solid contributors” and expect success against teams who are build around and contain many impact players. I don’t think we drafted any players who will now or in the future take our team from the worst defensively or offensively to being contributors.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 1, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Overall, getting on the field early in your rookie season is a good thing. Specifically,
On Davis- he was playing in the regular season before he got hurt. He looked good in preseason and while that may not matter too much in the long run, it is what we have to base opinions on at this point. And he looked good, and he won a roster spot as a 6th round pick and won playing time. Without his injury, I bet he is starting right now. I also liked him at Clemson. There are plenty reasons to like that pick.
On Maiava- 6 tackles a game means he is contributing. Are they all behind the line of scrimmage? No, but I like how he has played. Think he has good instincts and projects to a D’Qwell Jackson type. Undersized and not a big play maker but a solid ILB.
On Elam- I like him best when he is allowed to play near the line, blitzing or in run support. Like Dorn said, I think you are thinking of Pool on the Calvin Johnson play. And while it is not a good sign for your defense overall if your safety has a lot of tackles, it doesn’t say anything bad about the safety himself. It means he can make tackles when he needs to. And, like I said, he is at his best when he is playing near the line of scrimmage. Tackles there are good.
On Coleman- I think he starts for most 3-4 teams.
On Francies- I’m intrigued by his size and speed and solid scouting report. He was raw and never going to be a big factor this year.
On Mack- Build from the inside out. You got a 10 year starter in the late 1st round. Great pick.
I agree that we lack big playmakers and these guys are more pieces than stars to a successful start. But, Mangini’s strategy was to build a foundation and add the big playmakers later. Argue with the strategy if you want, but it is a clear strategy and on a personnel level, I think it has been successful.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 1, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I respect your opinion. I disagree whole heartedly with many point though.
With Davis, you listed some points but still didn’t provide much reason to be excited for him other than the fact that he has your favorite teams jersey on. having a roster spot doesn’t mean anything.
On Maiava, I don’t think you have anything to go off of by saying he has good instincts. I feel like you wish he had good instincts. I do to, but I can’t particularly say he does just because I want him to. Like you said he’s severy undersized. And contributing doesn’t equate to wins. Hell I could contribute if you give me a million dollars a year and someone run towards me.
With Elam, he has many tackles but in that same sense he misses tackles along with the rest of the secondary, takes bad angles and most importantly he’s terrible at coverage. He’s never in position to make a play, ever. i don’t think you can give a player credit for not doing what he’s supposed to do well, which is coverage; and give him props for playing at the line of scrimmage but still not being much of a difference maker.
Coleman – he doesn’t start on many 3-4 teams. Back up maybe, but he probably shouldn’t even be starting for us. but thats debatable so its no point in going further
Francies – He’s 6-0 and 185 pounds. Thats absolutely nothing to be excited about and he ran a 4.5-4.6 forty. He’s probably one of the smallest in the draft
I feel like you’re just optimistic about players and if thats the stance you choose to take, I can’t hate you for it. Just don’t allow that optimism to set you up for failure by taking table scraps and expecting a meal out of them.
If this regression is in fact his strategy, I don’t see how it can be considered successful when this team has been so absolutely terrible this year. I feel like if most browns fans arrange their justifications and feelings on his moves by the outcomes. If the rookies were doing great and winning games, then everyone would be calling him a draft genius and saying how he intentionally picked these players because they’re NFL ready. But since they aren’t doing much so far, the justification is he picked them to develop after 3-4 years and he’s building a foundation. I take a more realistic approach. If he can’t draft players than can somewhat be successful and improve a bad team, then he failed.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 1, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
I am wary of being too optimistic of my own team. But I really did, and still do like many of these pickups. I really believe it was a good draft for the Browns.
Some of what you said doesn’t make too much sense to me. 6’0 is really tall for a CB these days. Francies is the tallest CB on the Browns by far, and probably the tallest in the division. Elam hasn’t been quite as dynamic as I hoped, but I simply disagree with your assessment of him. He hasn’t been terrible in coverage. He hasn’t missed a lot of tackles. Coleman was a starter for 2 years on the Jets, leading the team in tackles one of those years. He also was a contributor to the Cowboys for several years. Maiava has been in good position, just a step late since being a starter the last couple weeks.
Sorry, I just don’t agree with your individual assessments. I wish I had time to break some of these down more with numbers and videos, but I don’t have the time right now.
On the overall picture, I think you are missing the point. Edwards, Winslow and a top 5 pick would have gotten us a couple wins, but would also have held the team back in the long term. It would bog down our payroll in three players paid like superstars, but limited in their ability to lead a young rebuilding effort. So he focused on two things: 1.) getting guys that knew his system and culture and could help teach it to the rest of the team (enter Elam, Coleman, Bowens, Barton). 2.) guys that could form the foundation of a competitive team as early as 09 and by 2010. (enter Mack, MoMass, etc.).
Like I said, the plan is clear. It was clear at the time. And it has been followed. There have been some missteps (Robiskie) and there are still lots of question marks (Veikune).
I’m no fan of how Mangini was hired and I think he probably should be fired. But its not because of a lack of a plan and a series of very solid long term moves on the personnel side, centered on the 2009 and 2010 draft.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
In support of Maiva...
Actually, if you watched what the Ray Rice did to the Steelers last Sunday, it actually increases the respect you get for the way Maiava’s playing right now.
Rice was carving Pitt up all night. He barely got anything when Maiava was on him. I remember watching Maiva cover Rice on RB in-and-out and kept him contained perfectly.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 1, 2009 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I feel that this draft was a disasterous failure and we didn’t get not one impact player that will in the long run take this team to the next level. Like I said you can’t build a play-off team with run of the mill players.
The average height of CB’s in this league is 5-10 to 5-11. If you are excited about francies just because he’s 2 inches taller then every other CB, then you should have wanted Sean Smith who is 6-5 215 and he ran the same forty as Francies. I’ll just take it as you trying to find a reason to put faith in an unknown player because since height obviously has nothing to do with success anyway
Elam has been terrible so far. He’s never in position to make a play and he get carved in coverage, regardless if fans want to see it or not but our defense show it.
And when it comes to the overall picture…overall all of the players in the draft are young and are going to stay around for at least 4 years so saying his selection of players are built for the future is nonsense. It sounds like you’re essentially saying that you can only plan for the future by drafting players that take a while to “develop”. I happen to believe that the team would have been just as future ready by drafting Sean Smith, Rey, Laraunitus, Kruger, McCoy, or any of the other more NFL ready players. But then again I don’t fit my justifications of the team around the dumb moves that they make. And what makes the “strategy” even more nonsense is the fact that you build the team around your impact players, not the other way around. The team feeds off the leadership of its stars, i.e. Ray Lewis, Manning, Brees, Brady, Sharper, etc.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 2, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
I would have loved to have the 6’3 Sean Smith, who was drafted in the second round. We took the 6’0 Francies, one time projected as a second round pick, in teh 6th round. That late in the draft, you are looking for potential. Drafting a high upside 6’0 corner in the 6th round is a solid pick. Half a season later, we don’t know what we have in him, he can’t get on the field. But is that surprising or disappointing for a 6th rounder? No.
It is funny, you are arguing that Elam is terrible and on a different thread two guys are talking about how great he is. I think he is somewhere in between. He has obvious strengths, and some weaknesses. I think he has been a nice part of the team, and a good replacement for Jones, probably an upgrade.
So you want Sean Smith for Francies? Great, who wouldn’t. Larunitus wasn’t available for us in the second round. McCoy would have been a good pick. Better than Massaquoi? Debatable. I’m not sold on Rey, at all. We are left with Kruger over Veikune. And I agree, I’d rather have Kruger at this point. But, like mentioned up thread, Kruger hasn’t really found the feild all that much either.
It is fine if you think that the team needs to be build on stars. I think that can lead to flaky teams. I think Parcells, Belichick, McDaniels, Mangini, and anyone in the Steelers organization would all disagree very strongly. All have a strong belief that no player is bigger than the team and that the culture and system are the most important foundation to a successful team.
And even if you go with your “strategy”, I don’t think there was a Ray Lewis, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Tom Brady available to us. I don’t know what Sharper has to do with anything. He is neither as big a star as the others, and he is an example of adding a playmaker after you have the base of the team, not the other way around.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
It is fine if you think that the team needs to be build on stars…I think Parcells, Belichick, McDaniels, Mangini, and anyone in the Steelers organization would all disagree very strongly.
I think you may be swinging this argument a bit too far to try to make a point. Belichick has happened to coach a few ‘stars’ in his time at New England. I think we could probably name a couple of the obvious suspects for the Steelers as well.
by Western Reserve on Dec 2, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying that these coaches or organizations never have stars, just that they use stars differently than Rocland suggests. i.e., bring in Randy Moss to an incredibly stable and strong team situation.
Others become stars precisely because the organization and culture is so strong, i.e. Rothlisberger. I don’t think he is half as successful if drafted by a weaker organization.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
This is the same reason I don’t think we need to show Mangini the door.He has set himself up with 11 picks in the draft.Showing him the door just means we will go and do all this crap all over again.Stick with the man give him 2-3 yrs and see what happens.
Anyone that though this team was going to win more then 3-4 games was dead wrong hell I gave them 3 games and I look way off now as well.
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 1, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
You assume that who ever we bring in isn’t skilled at drafting.
Some of the names thrown around have a very strong background in drafting. I think that will be a very important factor in whomever Lerner hires.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 2, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
It is not the point of there skill in drafting it is the point that if we bring in a new person now we will go and have the whole roster blown up again and start all over because no matter how much we hate to say it every HC has there type of guys.
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 2, 2009 9:49 AM EST up reply actions
I would be concerned with this fact if there were more than 15-20 guys on this roster that I really cared about keeping. Outside of Thomas, Steinbach, Mack, MoMass, Rogers, DQ, Trusnik, Wright, and Davis I don’t think there are any players on this roster that HAVE to be on this roster next season.
That is why I don’t see the harm of “blowing it up”. After all if you blow up a turd, it is still a turd.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 2, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t even be upset losing Steinbach. I am intrigued by this Roth guy, hopefully he shows something and becomes a guy I want around next year, I assume you didn’t mean to leave Cribbs off this list, but other than that I agree with the names.
Cribbs was an oversight.
I agree on Roth. I think that it was a major get for us. Perfect for strongside 3-4.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 3, 2009 2:17 AM EST up reply actions
Haha, I like your turd reference. Gave me a chuckle.
I think there’s cause to be concerned about blowing up the roster again. If we can build off of the talent that we have right now then we could be at .500 within maybe a year or two. If we blow up the roster it would probably take longer. I think we have some good talent on the team right now… In addition to those that you’ve mentioned I’d say D’Qwell Jackson, Barton, Maiava, Wimbley, Cribbs, Costanzo, Stuckey… Some of those guys may not be awesome, but I think they’ve showed/are starting to show potential this year. I think if we build off of those guys then we’d have a good chance to be competitive sooner than if we blow up the roster and start over.
In addition to those that you’ve mentioned I’d say D’Qwell Jackson, Barton, Maiava, Wimbley, Cribbs, Costanzo, Stuckey…
I was wrong for forgetting Cribbs. As penance I will go out back and run through three man wedges.
As for the others I see them most as replaceable guys. I like DQ but I am not in love with him. If we traded him tomorrow for a 2nd or 3rd, I would be happy with it. Wimbley has been outplayed leaps and bounds by Trusnik and with the addittion of Roth, I wouldn’t even mind if Wimbley was nothing more than a pass rusher. The rest are easily replaceable to me.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 3, 2009 2:25 AM EST up reply actions
I agree the roster is shit but Mangini came in got the ones that did not want to be here cleaned up are cap issue and at the same time got us extra picks in the draft.Just because his first year has been shit does not mean the team is not moving forward.All this fire him becuase we suck does not work out when we sucked before we hired him.
Not sure we could get a better HC if we fire him after one year who really wants to come to a bad team and only get 11 games to turn it around?
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 2, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
The trades of Braylon, Kellen, and #5 pick were good that can’t really be argued. The problem after the trades is that we never turned the trade of a playmaker into anything that resembles a playmaker. Mack is the only one you could argue.
Robiskie was always said to be a possession receiver, but did not have deep play ability. MoMass was known in college for having big play ability, but also having Braylon Edwards like moments w/ his hands.
Our offense was destined to fail from the start of the season. Not naming a QB til after the 4th preseason game, rookie Offensive Coordinator, and after week 4 we officially had no playmakers on offense, outside of Joe Thomas. Those are 3 huge reasons why Mangini has failed this season and why he deserves to be fired.
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 1:46 AM EST up reply actions
Not sure we could get a better HC if we fire him after one year who really wants to come to a bad team and only get 11 games to turn it around?
Money and Ego my friend.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 3, 2009 2:27 AM EST up reply actions
Why the high praises for the man. He hasn’t done anything to constitute good coaching. In 11 games he took this team from a bad team to the worst team. I think some of us need to stop drinking the bong water and realize this man is not the answer to our problems. Everyone in the league realizes this, why can’t we?
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 2:55 AM EST up reply actions
My post was that money and ego are two massive reasons why we will be able to attract a better HC to Cleveland this offseason.
If Mangini is fired.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 3, 2009 3:16 AM EST up reply actions
Not sure we could get a better HC if we fire him after one year who really wants to come to a bad team and only get 11 games to turn it around?
When reading that it looks like you are saying we won’t be able to find a better coach. So we should stick w/ him.
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
I call BS on that.Cower turned down cash and Martty said there would be no amount of money to get him to come in adn try to fix this mess.Money and ego will get you no were if the Owner don’t give you time to fix the mess you walked into.Hat Mangini all you want if he is fired we will be a 1-3 win team next year as well and have to sit here and ask why is so and so on this team.Answer would be because we don’t know how to wait for the long term to be built.
No matter how you want to spinn it no HC worth his time in the NFL would waste it on a team that don’t give you time to build up a team.
As for Borin I am not full of “high praises” I am saying why fire a man after 1 yr when we all knew this team sucked.As for everyone in the league these fools ride who is hot.Recall at the first part of the year the Jets stole there star rookie QB from the Browns now it is should he be the QB at all there.The leauge changes when the wind blows.
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 3, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Cowher didn’t come out of retirement because he was not ready to return to coaching. It had nothing to do with money, it was timing.
Money and ego will get you no were if the Owner don’t give you time to fix the mess you walked into
The Lerner family has shown that they give head coaches time. The fact that Lerner isn’t doing that with Mangini should show you how poorly this coaching staff has performed. It is a coaching situation, not an owner situation.
I am saying why fire a man after 1 yr when we all knew this team sucked
The Browns are a Roscoe Parrish fumbled punt from a very real shot at being 0-16. That doesn’t bother you? Yes, I expected this team to not be very good this season. But this team just doesn’t even compete. We get our doors blown off by poor teams (Bears). We have the leagues worst offense and statistically the leagues worst defense. That is a complete and total malfunction. People should lose their jobs for complete and total malfunctions. If Mangini and his staff were able to show any signs of growth throughout the season I would be glad to have him back.
Every other crap team in the NFL has had silver linings to this season. The Rams have found a leader on defense and the fact that Steven Jackson is still a beast. The Bucs have found their QB of the future. Same for the Lions. Chiefs have a win over the Steelers. Raiders beat the Eagles.
The Browns have the emergence of Michael Gaines. Kill me now.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 3, 2009 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
We had 3 games that we was leading or in at the half to watch the D fall apart.We have a FG in that if missed could have been a winSo what ifs could also make us 5-11 and a ok looking team.
Cower had said last year that no amount of money would bring him out this year.I also think it was more he did not want anything to do with this team and would not be shocked to see him in Carolina next year.
Just because we can throw cash at people does not mean they will make things any better or that they want to come here.The only issue I have had with Mangini has been the whole Daboll is still OC.I don’t care who would have been the HC this year the team would still be looking at 1-10 or maybe 2-9 but no way could any HC turn this team of bad players into a good one much less turn it around in 11 games.
You keep pointing fingers at the HC that took over a very very bad team and think he should be doing better with players that on most teams would be 3rd sting or on the practice team.
Just don’t agree with throwing this man under the buss when the buss had no wheels to start with.But to each there own and this is were I am done.Nice talking with you about this think we both want the same thing a team that can win.
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 4, 2009 1:29 AM EST up reply actions
It’s demonstrably impossible to find a worse headcoaching effort in the history of the league.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
From Wikipedia:
2006 return to Raiders
Shell was officially re-hired by the Raiders as head coach on February 11, 2006. After leading the team to its worst record (2 wins, 14 losses) since 1963, Shell was fired once again by the Raiders on January 4, 20071. Although the Raiders’ defense was one of the best in the league, its anemic offense, along with a season long feud with wide receiver Jerry Porter led to the team’s downfall and Shell’s dismissal.
2-14 is probably our ceiling now, and there are no hopes to have “one of the best” defenses in the league. Perhaps I was exaggerating a bit, but it’s hard to disprove that he’s “coached down” the team he primarily built.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Really worse then the job done in Detroit last year? I think not .I might not like some of the crap done like Lewis being the main back or DA in his 4 games.But don’t think this has been the worse HC effort in the history of the NFL.
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 2, 2009 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
I am not saying I disagree with you, but the Lions had a handful of close games and had a decent offense.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 2, 2009 8:31 PM EST up reply actions
we have a couple of close games and a win. they had no wins. it might not seem like much, but we won a game. they didn’t.
One more win doesn’t necessarily make a team better. There’s a lot more to it than that; strength of schedule and point differential tell you a lot, too. I’d say a team which loses every game by less than 4 points to be better than a team which wins one game but loses the rest by more than 10 points.
Put it this way . . . is a 5-win team always better than a 4-win team? Is an 11-win team always better than a 10-win team? Of course not.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
agree with all of that. what i was trying to say, essentially, was that i’ll take 1-15 over 0-16. after the season is over, statistically and historically, we aren’t the worst. we’re dreadful, and i’ve never personally seen a team play as poorly as this team has for most of the season. but looking back, we aren’t the worst of all time.
Reference? Where? (has only seen seasons one and two)
by BrownDawg1409 on Nov 30, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
farfetch’d is the name of a pokemon from season one or two i believe, if thats not what you were going for, i think you meant “far-fetched”
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Farfetch’d_(Pok%C3%A9mon)#In_the_anime
by notthatnoise on Nov 30, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, that. No, that wasn’t a reference (I know what one is). I just can’t spell w/o spell check.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 1, 2009 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
He turned Miami into an 11 win team in one year.
If even close to that could be accomplished here he’d be regarded as a complete miracle worker.
They turned into an 11 win team in one year because of Bill Parcells? or was it a combination of Bill Parcells’ front office work and Tony Sparano implementing the Wildcat offense, that only Miami can run effectively? or was it just the Wildcat offense that made them so effective?
My other question is if Parcells is the one making all the moves like we all seem to think what is their GM Jeff Ireland doing? Is he doing what George Kokinis was doing, that being sitting on his hands? If so i wish we would have kept Kokinis around so he could help evaluate talent.
Watch Live Sports On Your Computer...
http://a9b0787gt2z74zafdrp5602mac.hop.clickbank.net/
by BornInThePound on Nov 30, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions
I should make it clear that I would like Parcells directing the Browns next season. So don’t think I’m against him.
by BornInThePound on Nov 30, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
Parcells went to Miami and ‘rebuilt’ a team with two all world running backs. We’ll be lucky to win five next year no matter who is running the show.
It would have taken Paul Brown three years to turn Phil Savage’s mess into a .500 team.
nah, you or I could have turned 08’s team into a .500 team with a little luck. Thing is, .500 isn’t the goal. At least not for Mangini
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Exactly right. The ‘08 team wasn’t that bad . . . remember, before the season we were all saying that last year’s team was done in by bad coaching and QB injuries. Most of us thought a new coach with a better game plan could come in here and make this a .500 team, or close to it. To say that this team was a “mess” this offseason and it would have taken 3 years for anyone to get it to .500 is simply revisionist history.
The team wasn’t very good no matter how you slice it. We were close in a few games and blew a couple big leads, but that would have only gotten us to about .500 if we get those breaks.
I didn’t say we were good, but not nearly as bad as he’s implying.
Anyways, weren’t you expecting us to be close to .500 this year? I remember you were quite upset when Peter King picked us to go 2-14 because you thought we’d be much better. So that’s much better than what golan is saying above, that it would have taken us three years just to get back to .500 no matter who we hired. That’s a gross exaggeration.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 1, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
When I said that it would take Paul Brown three years to turn the team Mangini inherited into a .500 team, what I meant was a team that’s .500 year in and year out like the Steelers and Pats and Ravens. A team that with a little luck has a chance to make the playoffs every year, not a team that needs a little luck and a soft schedule just to get to .500.
In other words, just because a team wins eight games doesn’t necessarily make them a .500 team (IMNSHO).
A .500 team year in and out that gets a little luck every now and then is the Bengals and the Texans.
The Steelers, Pats and Ravens come close to .500 when they have injuries, tough schedules and a down year.
Big difference.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 1, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Right. I don’t think anyone would refer to the Steelers and the Pats as a “.500 team”. Like you said, .500 is a down year for them. They are consistantly a 10-11 win team, and there are very few of those.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 1, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
I do, because .500 is the default expectation for the Steelers and Pats, because they have both quality and depth. They’re never an injury or five away from being a four win team.
.500 is 8-8. That would be disaster season for the Steelers or Pats. The Steelers are close to .500 with a bunch of injuries, but the expectation is STILL to win more than 8 games. New England has had a grueling schedule, and they STILL expected to win their division.
The default expectation is 10-12 wins and win playoff games.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Right. Since 1992 the Steelers have been below .500 three times.
That isn’t a .500 team by any definition.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 1, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
And for the record, I think my preseason prediction was for 6 wins. That in no way means that I thought this team was near to being a .500 team, though.
So it would take three years to build a team from 6 wins to 8 or 9 wins?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 1, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
If we have to wait 3 years to go from 6 wins to 8 or 9 wins then we need to fire Mangini now.
by BornInThePound on Dec 1, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, we need Phil savage back. He can get us ten wins in a season and then leave us worse than where we started.
I would argue that everyday. He acquired 3 above average players every offseason, minimum. After five years, you have Steelers/Pats depth. Too bad the “patience” dogma capriciously doesn’t apply to the only person who’s drafted a (let alone multiple) probowlers for the Browns in the last 20 years.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
The guy’s a great evaluator of talen, but there’s more to being a GM than that. You have to be able to make smart personel moves and know how to sign players to “smart” documents. Remember the Stallworth situation? Or the Anderson contract issue last year? Or trading away two of our picks to move up in the fourth round!??
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 2, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Or signing Bentley, or Baxter, or Cribbs, or Steinbach, or Jurevicious, or Zastudil, Fraley.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I said CONTRACTS not PLAYERS. Signing players to the garunteed money that Phil did is only a good idea when you can afford it. Like, if you’re the New York Yankees and there’s no cap limit.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 2, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
Which besides that, he had just as many bad moves as good ones. Trading two picks away to move up in the fourth round? I liked Savage too, but not to the point where I support trading away next year’s draft for mid-tier picks.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 2, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
Do you really want to have this discussion again?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 2, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
I’ve never brought it up. Golanbatrac is the one who continuously references Savage. The fact is personnel on this team has very little to do with Savage by this point.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
This theory of yours still doesn’t make sense unless a salary cap is unlimited given Savage’s penchant for overspending to get a player under contract.
See: Donte Stallworth (hooray, 7 years, 35 million!)
Obviously you realize that the years/total value of an NFL contract means nothing. So why bring it up?
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Actually it does matter when you guarantee a certain amount (in particular the bonuses) that prevent you from cutting the player when you want to.
I forget which Mangini interview I was reading recently, but he took a number of swipes at Savage discussing how many bad contracts the team had because of guaranteed bonuses.
A .500 teams isn’t 8 wins if everything bad happens — that’s a very good team. A .500 teams is one who wins between 7 and 9 games most years. I don’t know how you could define it any differently.
That’s like calling a student who consistantly gets A’s and B’s a “C student” because if he has a bad test after a night with no sleep he might get a C.
I agree with you on this. Concerning my preseason prediction, I think I was turning a blind eye to reality with optimism taking over.
I also don’t think a good rebuilding job should take more than 1 season in the NFL, but it’s essential to get some sort of playmaker on offense before that can happen, so I agree with you on how long it should take if done correctly.
I agree. I think few saw this team as in need of desperate rebuilding, but that’s what we have on our hands now. It’s not that this team ever had ‘playoffs’ written all over it, but sitting at 1-10, having blind faith in Mangini’s vision is a pretty bitter pill to try to swallow.
by Western Reserve on Dec 1, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions
Here’s the ‘team’ Phil Savage left us:
Quarterback: Two young QB’s, one a head case and the other a first rounder with next to no game experience.
Runningback: Captain stutterstep and a guy with next to no game experience.
Fullback: The only position on offense with both quality and depth.
The Line: Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, an undersized center, a walking injury, and an overpaid, underperforming turnstile at RT.
Wide Receiver: Braylon “hands of stone” Edwards, A former first rounder who had never done much of anything in the league, Paul frakin’ Hubbard, and Syndric freakin’ Steptoe.
Tight End: A ProBowler with ticking time bomb for a knee and an attitude to match, and an above average career backup.
D-Line: Shaun Rogers, a guy coming off an achilles injury, a 4-3 DT with a huge contract, and a rookie 6th rounder.
LIneBacker: Kam Wimbley, D’Qwell, a rookie 7th rounder, and Beau ’I’m so good I’m worth two picks’ Bell.
Defensive Backs: Eric Wright, Brodney Poole (who’s never been all that impressive), an underperforming free agent safety, and Toast.
Special Teams: The best Special teams unit in the league.
I don’t know where anyone would get that that team wasn’t that bad. Only a handful of starters (most of which were angling for a way out) and zero depth. Mangini had a complete top to bottom rebuild on his hands from day one.
Oh, I forgot Martin ’I’m so good I’m worth two picks’ Rucker. And the fact that we had, what, 5 picks and zero cap space to fill out the roster. Thanks Phil!
More cap space than any AFC North opponent.
All world at LT, DT and Returner
Above average at WR1, TE1, RG, FB, RB2, OLB1, ILB1, CB1, R1, K and P
Average at C, RG, RT, DE1, S2 (Pool)
Below average at WR2, RB1, DE2, OLB2, ILB2, S1 and CB2
Incomplete at (QB1, Quinn)
With a whole draft and Free Agency to work with, one of two NFL QBs to trade and more cap space than any other team in the AFC North. 1st and 2nd round pics a 100% hit rate, so two of the below average positions would go up.
I don’t know what Savage did to your sister, but your bias isn’t based on reality.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Who is our above average TE? And our above average RB?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 2, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Winslow, Harrison. I was talking about the team Savage made pre-09 offseason.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Sigh. I’m talking about the team he left us with. He chose to keep Winslow, even extended him post surgery. Then chose not to extend him later on, as he slowed a step. Either way, it was an evaluation of the team he made/maintained. Savage could have jettisoned at any point.
Harrison has averaged 5 yards a carry “in the league.”
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Zero depth. Three years to build a four win team. “Fuck you. Go root for Buffalo.” Shaffer. Contract. Turnstile. Williams. Second plus contract. Backup. Stalworth. Contract. Jail. Swollen balls. Stonehands. Drop. Drop. Drop. Punt. Drop. Drop. Drop. Punt. etc…
Thank god he’s gone.
Depth occurs in years 5, 6, 7.
The Buffalo email was a positive, as far as I’m concerned (he cared, and it was funny).
Shaffer contract is not nearly as bad as people on here make it out to be.
Williams deal sucked. Should he have been coached up? We all know Mel Tucker blew.
Stalworth was desperate, but also not a cap-hampering deal for a team with 70% of its starters under 27.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Seriously . . . why are we going through this again?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 2, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Tourettes?
I know my suit pants are supposed to fit like this but they do feel a bit snug. I'm going to make it work though. ~ Braylon Edwards
HahaHahaHaaa…
Wow! And here I’ve been the lone man arguing that it takes two or three years to rebuild. Five, six or seven? Seriously.
If it was going to take Phil five to seven years to fill the bottom half of the roster, I’ll double down on the thanks that he’s gone.
I know my suit pants are supposed to fit like this but they do feel a bit snug. I'm going to make it work though. ~ Braylon Edwards
At the time of the Corey Williams trade everyone said it was a great move by Savage. He was just franchised by the Packers and for a late 2nd round pick we were getting a guy who was supposed to get us 7+ sacks a season once he started full time.
Shaffer, Stallworth, and other I will agree were horrible. But I still agree with the Williams trade even though it didn’t work out. It was the right move at the time.
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 2:06 AM EST up reply actions
Unfortunately for Savage, we are allowed to judge with the benefit of hindsight. Despite it looking good at the time of the trade, it has proved to be a massive flop.
He has been a flop. He isn’t meant to play in a 3-4. If he goes back to a 4-3 he very well may be a pro bowl caliber player again. It obviously won’t be in Cleveland though. I just don’t like blaming people for bad moves when they were actually good moves at the time.
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
But you just argued my point by syaing he would be more successful in a 4-3. Shouldn’t someone who gets paid to evaluate talent, be able to forecast that Williams would struggle in a 3-4? That’s what makes the move a flop and potentially a bad trade at the time of the trade and not just with the benefit of hindsight. No matter how you look at it, it was a terrible move.
A lot of people around the league believed he would be able to make the adjustment to a 3-4 w/ no problem. It wasn’t just Savage.
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
Who are these people who thought Williams could be a 3-4 DE, and more important, are they now broadcasters like Phil?
Funny we are having this debate and then there are reports that Corey Williams is not happy in Cleveland.
Here’s a link….
by BornInThePound on Dec 4, 2009 1:58 AM EST up reply actions
for some reason it didn’t post
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/03/corey-williams-not-happy-in-cleveland/
by BornInThePound on Dec 4, 2009 1:59 AM EST up reply actions
RG? Maybe you meant LG.
RB2? Harrison is nice and all, but he isn’t above average as a RB2. He has serious durability issues and can’t pick up a blitz if his life depended on it. These are fatal flaws.
ILB1? D’Qwell Jackson is overrated. But I realize that most don’t agree.
What is a R1?
Are above average options at FB, K, and P really that interesting?
Hank Fraley has become below average, I’d say as of 2008.
Are you counting Ryan Tucker?
I don’t know who you are thinking Savage left as a below average WR2. Steptoe? He doesn’t belong on any roster. ILB2? I’m not sure who you are thinking. Lewis is worse than below average he is terrible.
I liked Savage, but you sure paint a pretty picture out of a team that still didn’t have a lot of talent.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Hadnot.
I think Harrison is underutilized as a RB2. Durability isn’t a known issue, he’s been out b/c Mangini was “sending a message.”
Jackson is above average.
R1 is returner, I realize it was erroneously posted twice.
They’re not interesting, but they’re part of making a football team.
Fraley is about a 1,000% return on the investment/circumstances in which he was acquired.
No. Hadnot and Shaffer.
WR2 was a clear hole in 08. However, Stallworth was an extremely durable receiver when acquired (missing only 4 games the previous 4 years). Coupled with Edwards and Winslow as your top two targets, and not many teams invest much in a 3rd receiver.
ILB2 was one of the below average spots that could be addressed in offseason 09.
We are not going to see the likes of Thomas, Rogers, Cribbs, Bentley, Wright etc acquired here in a long time. If we do, we’ll be lucky. After one year, this is holding true.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
If Harrison is underused by both Crennel AND Mangini then don’t you suppose it’s because of the player and not the coaches?
I think Harrison is underutilized as a RB2. Durability isn’t a known issue, he’s been out b/c Mangini was "sending a message.
Durability is a very known issue with him. He was hurt much of 07 and 08. And he can’t find the field, regardless of coach, because he can’t pick up a blitz.
Fraley is about a 1,000% return on the investment/circumstances in which he was acquired.
You are absolutely right. It was a great pick up and it helped us win 10 games in 07 despite the Bentley situation. But I thought we are talking about what Savage left us with. By the end of 08, Fraley was below average.
No. Hadnot and Shaffer.
I’ll give you Hadnot. Not Shaffer though. Again, by the end of 2008, it was clear that he was a below average player. He is now the biggest whole in what is the one of the worst o-lines in the league.
I don’t mind counting Winslow as your WR2. But don’t count Stallworth. By the end of 2008, he was already a bust. By the time Mangini was hired, it was clear he would never play for the Browns again.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Well, here´s a question. Could you compile a better team, with back-ups from all NFL rosters? Maybe a few guys from last year´s draft that you were counting on, that didn´t make it? Possibly even a few you think are used wrong or not enough, or malcontent ones?
I mean ignore their fantasy stock, just based on your knowledge of talent.
If there was a fairy to grant this possiblity, what names would you drop?
But first we should see if that fairy is already among us. Before we do the old sugar daddy routine.
Ok guys, no one took my challenge. But it looks like the fates may have responded. NFL.com has these players on the waiver wire for DEC 1st:
ILB Brit Miller
S Anthony Scirrotto
OT Corey Clark
Furthermore, heres a few that were waived earlier:
CB Stuart Schweigert
CB Mark Rubin
LB Solomon Elimimian
QB Chris Pizzotti
OT Drew Radovich
DT George Hypolite
As well as these former Browns, who weren´t half bad:
CB Abdullah Hamza
DT Adam Hoppel
These are waiver players. I haven´t even looked at players wallowing away on practice squads and as second stringers.
I think we should give him good credit for Wright, Jackson and Rogers on the defensive side, but you are right pointing out the holes.
The offense was not great in 2008 (except for 3 games the entire season) and the actual talent that was there were guys that did not want to be part of this franchise’s future (Edwards, Winslow.) The RB situation was and is still embarrassing. I would say the worst in the league for 2 years running and 7 of 10 years since the rebirth.
I agree we were lacking many parts to be a division contender let alone a playoff contender. But i don’t feel that we were worse off than some of the other teams in the league ie: Lions, Raiders, Rams, Chiefs. After the overhaul it seems we took a step back instead of a step forward. One big reason for our downfall this season is Mangini’s horrible first draft with the browns.
-I like Alex Mack a lot, but I don’t see how we pass on CLAY MATHEWS!
-In the 2nd round we made 2 horrible picks. We jumped early on Brian Robiskie and passed on Rey Maualuga. Yes i know no one likes him, but you need to build your 3-4 defense through strong linebackers and he would help improve dramatically.
-MoMass still needs another offseason to develop, but he will be key to our success. So good pick there. I was actually ecstatic when we drafted him.
-And then there is David Veikune. Draft analysts were saying how the browns could have gotten him in the 3rd and possibly the 4th round so why did we waste a pick on him? The guy we should have taken was the guy picked right after, Lesean Mccoy. He would be our starting RB right now for sure.
Our starting linebackers should be Clay Mathews, Rey Maualuga, D’Qwell Jackson, Kamerion Wimbley. The thought that we could have had that makes me wanna cry.
Then MoMass still starting for us and Lesean Mccoy at Running Back.
So what i’m saying is, yes we weren’t where some of us thought, but at the same time Mangini didn’t take the proper steps in the draft to get us in the position to make a quick turnaround. I don’ t think Parcells would have let this team make those draft missteps.
by BornInThePound on Dec 1, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Everything about the ‘09 draft says ’I’m thinking long term’. I don’t think a short turnaround was on Mangini’s agenda. And looking at the near total lack of positional depth on the team he inherited, I tend to think he was right.
He very well could have been thinking long term, but when you have the opportunity to draft IMPACT players you need to take them. You can’t tell me seeing 3 starters from our first 4 picks of ‘09 draft class wouldn’t make you smile. Especially if 2 of them were on defense.
by BornInThePound on Dec 1, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
It is easy to go back and pick a few rookies like McCoy or Matthews and say we should have picked them. But it isn’t very productive.
So you wanted McCoy, Matthews, and Maualuga over Mack, Robiskie and Veikune. Fantastic. We might make it to 2 wins with that team. Though our o-line would be a major weakness. McCoy would probably have gotten hurt instead of Davis. Maualuga isn’t all that good in coverage- with Bowens and Barton, I don’t think he sees the field much more than Maiva or Veikune has. I’d like Matthews, but not at the expense of Mack.
You could have played this game with just about any team. Nobody gets 4 starters with their first 4 picks within a half of a season.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
When I was watching the draft these were the players I thought we should have taken at those respective picks. I’m not trying to go through the whole idea of, lets go back and see who we could have taken, I’m going back and saying I think before the season and before seeing anyone play in the NFL these are the players I think would have helped our team develop faster. Center was a major need for our team and Alex Mack is going to be great for us, but we had greater needs on our team. Like guys who can stop the run.
Eric Barton and David Bowens are great fill ins, but they are the guys that should be providing us the depth that we covet. Not the ones who make us feel we can pass on possible long term solutions.
by BornInThePound on Dec 1, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
The intent of the front office was never there to pass on long-term solution. If there was an impact player available that would be a long-term solution, I am certain they would have taken that player. Mack is a long-term solution and while you could quibble that we should have taken Matthews over Mack, we did in fact draft a long-term solution on the offensive line.
The Robiskie pick is unfortunate thus far, but with Lauranitis off the board at that point, it wasn’t egregious. I am not a fan of drafting WRs in general, as I had this debate a lot before the draft, but there is not a player that we passed on that I am really upset about not getting.
Yeah, Lauranitis would look great right now in a Cleveland uniform. I’m not upset about passing on Mauluaga because I thought he was overrated to begin with.
Overall, it’s way too early to start judging our draft picks. It’s easy to look at player having success on other teams and saying that we should have drafted him, but so much of a player’s success depends on the players around him and the scheme he plays in. I really don’t see any rookies who would have stepped in to our situation this year and had much of an effect.
I think you´re wrong about who we passed up on.
I think B.J. Raji, Max Unger and Shonn Green are realistic, P.J. Hill later on, anyone? And then please don´t discount talent in the later rounds that got shoved out because no one dared to trust their own evaluations, leaving us to choose from certain peoples´ reduced lists, due to not having been critical regarding scouting reports.
In short this draft was volatile at the top, and shallow on the bottom, because honchos around the league didn´t feel the winds of change, that is do your own evaluations.
Everything about the ‘09 draft says ’I’m thinking long term’
I believe thats pure conjecture and a cliched cop-out. It was a DRAFT. It doesn’t matter what you do because every move you make regardless of what it may be, is for the “long term”. But regardless of what moves you make they need to be for the success of the team. So if it included drafting 2 players who would greatly impact the team over 6 players who are kinda just there to hope they develop in the future, I’m all for that.
What it boils down to is that there are Coaches who can make personnel moves that will immediately impact their team and there are coaches who can’t. The only thing Mangini and his apologist have proven to me is that he’s incapable of conducting a draft that will help us improve, so they take the “slow improvement” cop-out. Otherwise, you have to admit that it’s impossible to draft players that don’t take 3 years to develop and that would be a flat out lie.
Its silly for someone to say drafting 2 WR’s in the second round is for the “long term” but drafting a LB and DB isn’t. Nonsense
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 1, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
Receivers generally take two to three years to develop. You don’t take two in the second round if you’re looking to win right away.
If that’s the case (which IMO I don’t buy), why is it better to go the “2-3 years until we’re competitive approach” rather than the “draft some impact players and not almost go winless the upcoming season” approach? I haven’t seen anyone explain their reasoning for this viewpoint, other than justification for the fact that none of them are helping the teamout at this point.
But what if Mangini used a combination of the two? Thats my major problem with the draft. We could have taken a WR in the second and an impact player with the other picks while getting a WR later in the draft to develop. But instead, in the second we got 3 players who have the “potential” to be good players in the future. And by potential we really mean “we’re hoping”.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 1, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
Because Phil left us with next to no picks. If we had more picks (instead of constantly trading down to pick up additional sixth rounders) you probably see Mangini and Co. take those high impact players and get the developmental ones later. But when you your restricted, you get the guys who you can develop now so that you have more even talent and depth when you bring in rookies the next year with “impact” talent.
And while I agree about Veikune being a complete question mark (drafting him as a defensive end and moving him inside?) at the time most of us would probably agree that we thought Robo was going to be our #2 at the start of the season. Whether we have to wait a year or two for him to break out is yet to be seen.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 1, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
“Most NFL ready receiver” screams supposed to be instant impact to me.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 1, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
As we’ve discussed many times, receivers rarely make an immediate impact in the NFL. It happens occasionally, of course, but even the best receivers usually take 2 or 3 years to produce consistantly. There have been many very good receivers who did very little during their rookie season.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 1, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t completely agree with that assessment. This season we have seen a good amount of WR’s make a good name for themselves already. Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks, Kenny Britt, Austin Collie, Johnny Knox, even Louis Murphy has looked good when his QB can actually put the ball within reach. I won’t say anything about Crabtree because he hasn’t played but a couple games.
by BornInThePound on Dec 2, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
Sure, those guys have had good games occasionally, but outside of Harvin none of them have been consistant receiving threats.
Again, history is on my side. It’s pretty much an established fact that receivers take a few years to adjust to the league before they really break out. You’ll see writers refer to this fact all the time when writing about the NFL and rookie receivers.
Massaquoi’s production is right in line with each of those guys and only Massaquoi has had to deal with being the number 1 option on a team’s offense and on a team that has struggled badly with QB play.
Kinda why I said “get them now so that they’re more developed when we’re better”. Not an exact quote, but still.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 2, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Brad, i agree with you. History has definitely shown that it takes a couple years for WR’s to develop. But that’s why it’s history and not present or future.
2 of the 3 major sports have already gone through this kind of change. The NBA with the astonishing play of High School players making the jump straight to the NBA and Major League Baseball has been seeing more and more 20 & 21 year olds making impacts at the PRO level, when they used to never be considered to even be at AA or AAA. Things change and it looks like they may be changing in the NFL.
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 2:41 AM EST up reply actions
Huh? I’m talking recent history, not decades ago. Receivers take a few years to develop. That’s still the norm in the league, and nothing in the last few years has shown anything different.
And you are completely wrong with your second point. High schoolers have been jumping to the NBA for a couple decades now, so that’s not a recent change. (And, if you want to talk recent change, high schoolers haven’t been allowed to go directly to the NBA for the past two years). As far as baseball, the number of 20 and 20-year-olds playing in the majors is now higher now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. If anything, that number is lower as teams are reluctant to rush their prospects to the majors in order to delay their free agency down the road.
Did you not realize that i agreed w/ you about the fact that wide receivers normally do take a couple years to develop. What i’m saying is we have a new breed of athlete upon us today and they are more ready than ever to make an immediate impact. If you can’t see this then you are fooling yourself. There are more and more “Pro style” offenses in college that are helping the players make the transition easier.
Kevin Garnett in 1995 was the first high schooler to jump to the pro’s since 1989 and before 1989 it was 1975. From 1995-2005 is when there was a large out put of prep players making the jump. They stopped allowing Prep stars to enter the league immediately in the hope of helping the pro game, not because they couldn’t play.
I said there were more young players making an impact at the pro level Not necessarily more players in the league. With the costs of salaries in MLB, teams are starting to lean on their prospects a little more.
by BornInThePound on Dec 3, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
It has nothing to do with a “new breed of athlete”, it’s about learning to run routes and getting reps with the QB and the other mental aspects of the game.
If you have evidence to show that WR’s are making a bigger immediate impact in the NFL now than they have a few years ago then I might believe you, but just claiming that there is a “new breed of athlete” all of a sudden doesn’t prove a thing. Once again, look at the stats; rookie WR’s now aren’t any more productive than they were 5 years ago or 10 years ago.
I’d also like to see proof that there are more young players making an impact in pro baseball. You can’t just make claims out of thin air to try to prove your point.
2009- 5 players over 500 yards receiving through 12 weeks, 3 over 40 catches, 5 w/ 4+ td’s
2008- 6 players over 500 yards, 2 of which TE’s, 9 w/ 40+ catches-3 rb’s & 2 TE’s, 4 w/ 4+ td’s
2007- 4 over 500 yards, 4 w/ 40+ catches-1 TE, 3 w/ 4+ td’s
2006- 4 over 500 yards 1 of which RB, 6 w/ 40+ catches- 3 RB’s, 3 w/ 4+ td’s- 2 TE’s
2005- 2 over 500 yards, 3 w/ 40+ catches, 4 w/ 4+ td’s- 1 TE
2004- 5 over 500 yards, 1 1,000 yard season, 5 w/ 40+ catches, 7 w/ 4+ td’s- 1 TE
2003- 2 over 500 yards, Andre Johnson for 976, Boldin for 1,377, 3 w/ 40 + catches- 1 RB, 4 w/ 4+ td’s
2002- 5 over 500 yards, 6 w/ 40+ catches- 1 TE, 4 w/ 4+ td’s- 1 TE
2001- 4 over 500 yards, 4 w/ 40+ catches- 1 TE & 1 RB, 3 w/ 4+ td’s
2000- 3 over 500 yards, 3 over 40 catches, 2 w/ 4+ td’s
There are another 7 receivers projected to go over 500 yards, none of them being a TE or RB. 4 more projected to have 40+ catches, Won’t project td’s, but 4 more players have 2+ td’s. So they still have a fair chance at getting 2 more td’s.
That would make 12 players over 500 yards (5 are projected for 750 yards and 2 projected over 900 yards), 7 w/ 40+ catches, and lets say 7 w/ 4+ td’s. These past 2 years have looked pretty impressive.
by BornInThePound on Dec 4, 2009 2:59 AM EST up reply actions
So you’re right, there are more rookie WR’s playing well this year. But one year does not make a trend, and that’s what I have a problem with. This one year could be a statistical anomaly — every year in the draft there are some positions which stand out from others. Or maybe there are just a few rookie WR’s put in the right position to succeed (like Harvin in Minnesota or Collie in Indy). That doesn’t mean it will continue in the future. Making assumptions based on one or two years of data leads to faulty conclusions.
You are asserting that there is a “new breed of athlete” different from years past which can make an immediate impact, but how are this year’s rookie WR’s different athletically than guys from 3 or 4 or 5 years ago? There have always been great athletes coming in the NFL and many colleges have been running pro-style offenses for the last two decades. So I don’t see any reason to think that this is a new trend which will continue in the future, and soon we’ll be seeing many rookie WR’s stepping in to have an immediate impact.
Then you make your argument even worse by bringing up young athletes in the NBA and MLB and implying it has something to do with your point. As I said, high schoolers have been playing in the NBA since the mid-90’s so that goes against your theory that there is suddenly a new breed of athlete coming in to the NFL the past two years. If that were true, why weren’t rookie WR making a huge impact in the 90’s and early 2000’s when guys like Kobe and KG and LeBron were tearing up the NBA? And baseball players have been playing in the majors as 19 and 20-year-olds for over a hundred years. Bob Feller pitched for the Indians when he was 17 in the 1930’s, and there are many, many other examples like him. So I don’t see how any of that has to do with your theory of the “new breed of athlete” coming to the NFL over the last couple years.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 4, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
I for one never though Robo would play over Mass. I’ve always thought at best he would play on 3rd downs or out of the slot as someone we could count on to get open when the D is focused on our 1 and 2.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
The real sad part of the draft for me was missing out of 2 stud LBs that were picked just in front of us. Curry went number 4 when we were picking 5 (I am certain the Browns stay put if he is there.) In round 2, the Rams took Lauranitis right in front of us. I’d like to think we select Lauranitis if he is there for us at 36 in place of Robiskie.
I agree that was very disappointing. I was also upset about missing out on Brian Cushing. I think the consensus was that we all wanted a linebacker with one of our first 2 picks.
by BornInThePound on Dec 1, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
I was a huge fan of Cushing before the draft.
He has looked like a playmaker with the Texans.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 1, 2009 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not entirely conviced Larunitis would be a great fit for us. It’s possible, but from what I heard most scouts agreed that he lacked the build to be a 3-4 linebacker as opposed to being a starter in a 4-3 (like he is in St. Louis).
It’s possible he could have fit in, but I don’t think it’s likely.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 1, 2009 10:40 PM EST up reply actions
It boggles the mind that one could say this, and praise the Mangini regime’s personnel moves.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Why doesn’t it surprise me that your mind is boggled?
I know my suit pants are supposed to fit like this but they do feel a bit snug. I'm going to make it work though. ~ Braylon Edwards
Because we disagree as much as two people can on this issue.
Also because you know very little about football.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
why does everyone use “you know nothing about football” as their trump card? who cares how much anyone of us does or doesn’t know about football? we’re all fans and like to discuss our team. are you a bigger fan than me because you can analyze a defensive alignment better than i can? everyone has opinions on where the team is going and where it has been. football knowledge really has little to do with any of it.
Not really. Edwards was a pair of stone hands with a mouth who didn’t want to be here in the first place. At least the guys we have keep their mouth shut and don’t excuse away their drops.
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 2, 2009 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
Bullshit. Miami had three times the talent in their backfield than the Browns had on their entire offense.
Laughable. Thomas is worth more than their backfield. As are Edwards and Winslow.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
We must have been watching two different Edwards the last 2 years for you to even think this.
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 3, 2009 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
I think that his opinion is based on the fact that 99% of Running backs are easily replaced.
Aside from Ronnie Browns high draft choice, he has been a very ordinary RB in this league. Ricky Williams, at this stage in his career, is better than average.
RB’s are found everywhere. Gamebreaking WR’s and TE’s are not. Every year Pro Bowl Left tackles are so rare that it is insane to believe that a RB duo not named Peterson/Chris Johnson is anywhere close to equal.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 3, 2009 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
Ricky Williams projects to end the season with 1150 yards rushing and 13 TDs and 300 yards receiving and 3 TDs. While splitting carries for half the season. Against defenses who key on the run. On a team led by a first year starter at QB. With the 30th best passing game in the league. Whose two leading receivers have a sum total of 0 TDs. Williams is averaging 5.1 yds per carry.
If that’s just ‘above average’, then sign the Browns up for an ‘above average’ running back. It shouldn’t be that hard to find one since they’re so easily replaced.
Ricky Williams projects to end the season with 1150 yards rushing and 13 TDs and 300 yards receiving and 3 TDs.
Big deal. DeAngelo Williams split carries for half a season last year and ran for 1,500 and 18 TD’s. But, then again, DeAngelo Williams is an elite RB. Until Ricky Williams actually puts your dream season together, I don’t care. Don’t hold your breath, 32 YO RB’s usually aren’t very reliable. Once again, I am not saying Ricky Williams is garbage, but an above average back. Nothing more, nothing less.
If that’s just ‘above average’, then sign the Browns up for an ‘above average’ running back. It shouldn’t be that hard to find one since they’re so easily replaced.
Am I the only person here who understands how easy it is to find RB’s? Mike Shanahan made a career of it. There are maybe 10 Rb’s in the NFL that really truely matter. Peterson, CJ, MJD, DeAngelo, SJax, Turner, and I am starting to believe Ray Rice.
Look at Dallas. It doesn’t matter who carries the ball. All three members of their committee average over 4.6 YPC. It is the scheme and offensive line. Same with the Giants last season. Derrick Ward went for 1,000 last season in NY. He went to Tampa, and he sucks. Did he lose his talent? No, he lost the rest of the Giants offense.
I am willing to bet that Lex Hillard will average at least 4.7 YPC for the rest of the season in Miami. Why? Because he is an average back in above average system.
Our coaching sucks. Our offensive gameplan sucks. That would kill even a great RB. Just ask Matt Forte.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 4, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
Big deal. DeAngelo Williams split carries for half a season last year and ran for 1,500 and 18 TD’s. But, then again, DeAngelo Williams is an elite RB.
On a team with Steve Smith and Mushin Muhammed who combined for nearly 2500 yards receiving. The Dolphins top three receivers this year have less than 1000 yards combined. Defenses play up, and Williams still delivers 5.1 yards/carry. He’s a little better than ‘above average’.
I’m with you. There are maybe, MAYBE 5 RBs in the league that are truly difference makers. Peterson (even though his fumbles destroy a lot of his value), D. Williams, Chris Johnson, R. Rice, S. Jackson, probably MJD.
Ricky Williams is in the next group. A group that isn’t significant’y better than league average, but are solid football players. Look at RB rushing DYAR. Only 3 players are 20% better than league average this year on a per play basis (Ricky Williams, Pierre Thomas, and Chris Johnson). And 2 of them split carries heavily.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Why have the Browns in 10 years not had a RB then? We are either not trying at all, or it’s not as easy as it says. Right now we have the worst RB situation in the NFL.
I agree.
That’s because we made a huge mistake in investing money and – more importantly – carries in Jamal Lewis.
I’m pretty convinced you are severely hurting your team if you are giving a back more than 10-15 carries or so a game. (Exceptions only to the guys listed above by me and B19K). Keep the guys fresh, mix up styles, have defined roles, and don’t sink money into a replacement level, or worse, back.
Our situation at RB is terrible. But Lewis, Harrison, and Jennings are all within about 12% of league average themselves. Except for the bottom 5 and the top 5 backs in the league, the difference just isn’t that significant.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I am going to write up a fanpost about this. I have a pretty long answer and I threw in some research. I will link it when I finish it.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 5, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
Like I said must have been watching a differnet BE then I have the last 2 years because the man can not catch a cold if he ran outside naked and wet.
As for 99% of backs are easy to replace I find a little hard to buy when you look at soo many teams with bad ground games and cash being tossed at backs just to keep them.If they was so easy to replace then no back would get paid as much as they do because then you could just pick a new one every year and plug him in.This is the age of the WR and there is alot more good to great WR then backs in the NFL.
As for Williams being about avg I would take him right now over anything we have in are backfield.
by Brownsfan4ever on Dec 4, 2009 1:37 AM EST up reply actions
As for 99% of backs are easy to replace I find a little hard to buy when you look at soo many teams with bad ground games and cash being tossed at backs just to keep them.
Do you think Dallas regrets giving Marion Barber a big deal? Tashard Choice could do his job well enough at a much, much cheaper price. RB’s that get huge money usually end up looking like bad deals. Honestly, I wouldn’t resign Adrian Peterson to a big money deal. Maybe Chris Johnson. Just because other teams do foolish things doesn’t mean the Browns should.
If they was so easy to replace then no back would get paid as much as they do because then you could just pick a new one every year and plug him in.
This is correct. Outside of maybe ten RB’s, they are all replaceable. If you do not believe me, ask Mike Shanahan.
This is the age of the WR and there is alot more good to great WR then backs in the NFL.
You’re right. Teams now pass to run. Yes, there are some abnormalities (Miami, Rams amongst others) but this is no longer your Daddy’s NFL. Teams run the shotgun more than 50% percent of the time. This proves my point, an athletic, field strecthing WR/TE (like K2 and BE) are MUCH more important to an offense now than an average to above average RB.
As for Williams being about avg I would take him right now over anything we have in are backfield.
So would I, the Browns have the worst set of offensive weapons of any team in the NFL. And it is not even close.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 4, 2009 3:31 AM EST up reply actions
you wouldn’t resign peterson to a big money deal? i think i agree with your overall theme, but that part of it seems crazy to me. if he were here in cleveland, you’d have no problem letting him go if you thought he was asking for too much?
I wouldn’t just let him walk. I would probably deal him like Denver did with Portis.
I love how Adrian Peterson plays. Physical and he never takes a down off. That being said, his style of play will probably shorten his career.
I hope I am wrong because watching Adrian Peterson run wild is one of the best parts of my Sundays.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 4, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
We´re going to have a 2-back offense eventually. It´s just a matter of not enabling sub-par talents to claw themselves into the depth chart, by enabling them to achieve a lot of yardage by simply carrying it more often.
One runningback will assume the fullback role, and all it entails while also carrying the ball for dive plays. The other runningback will assume the halfback role, while blocking for the fullback on dive plays.
This will result in more evenly distributed yardage, so they may not crack the top 10. The versatility and appeal of a power running attack will make up for that though.
It´s just a matter of not enabling sub-par talents to claw themselves into the depth chart, by enabling them to achieve a lot of yardage by simply carrying it more often.
I like this, but why would we use a running back as a full back when we have Vickers?
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
I'm not sure if this has been posted as a fanshot, but thought it would fit here
Sorry for the subject typing but it’s a short article and I didn’t think it needed its own fanshot since the draft is being talked about here.
With high picks inactive, Browns’ 2009 draft is looking like a bust
There isn’t much new in the article but it got me thinking more about Mangini. Right now I’m willing to call Mangini a bad coach (nor a good coach) but I feel a source of his struggles both here and with the Jets, is that I think he might be overconfident in his abilities and his intelligence. I think this leads him to overthink some of his “easy” decisions and resent input from others around him.
To me examples of this would Kokinis allegedly doing nothing during his time here and the plethora go head scratching, puzzling or just surprising decisions that Mangini has made as coach. Decisions such as drafting two receivers in the 2nd round. The Rogers situation, the bus trip situation, the fine situations, the Davis issue, and the QB situation.
By themselves none of these situations would send up too red of a flag to me, but taken together they have made Mangini’s tenure here seem really weird and as I don’t believe he is bad coach (in terms of x’s and o’s) the only solution I can think of for our horrendous year is that there must be something in his personality that is affecting his coaching of the team and possibly his interaction with his assistants.
I don’t know, but I would love to have a direct line into his brain to see his thought process when making decisions.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
I didn’t see anything wrong with drafting two receivers in the second round. Now, you can argue that Robiskie wasn’t worth that high of a pick and that may turn out to be correct, but saying that we shouldn’t have drafted two receivers just on principle is incorrect. This team was sorely lacking at WR depth, as there was virtually nobody behind Edwards coming in to the season, so it was a position of great need for the team. And since WR always take a couple years to develop then they will hopefully be good and experienced in a couple years when we have other pieces around them.
You´re right Buckeye, there is nothing wrong with drafting 2 WR´s in the 2nd round. But they do have a point, if it was Massaquoi over Ellerbe, whom our rivals the Ravens got. Or Robiskie over Laurinaitis or Brian Hartline. You know, as an instead it becomes an object of contention. The only justification, if you would have liked the alternatives, is indeed where they were slated to go, that´s like at least cashing in at the right slot even if everyone is off.
With all due respect, Robiskie´s Dad should have called it, being an expert on WR´s.
Agreed. I think the two wideouts in the 2nd round was good not only from a depth standpoint but also from the standpoint of what the coaching staff wanted to do on offense. Both receivers were considered precise route runners and smart football players, but maybe lacking some of the speed expected of a #1 WR. I’m no football genius… But it seems like both would be pretty important pieces in building a ball control offense. It also makes sense because if I understand correctly, the assumption about Brady Quinn is that he doesn’t have the arm strength to throw down field all the time, but he throws accurately. It seems like good route runners that won’t be burning cornerbacks downfield fit pretty well with Quinn’s strengths.
I have no qualms with taking two receivers as a draft strategy it just didn’t seem to make sense in our situation.
I just think with the two WRs we selected and with Edwards still being on the team one of those receivers could have been another position player and we could have taken a receiver later in the draft, came back this year and got another receiver, or one in free agency or through a trade. I just don’t see how we expected to hit the jackpot on these two receivers in the same round, so i guess i’m believing that we could have took the one we liked and used the other pick to work on other areas.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Is there an outside chance for a trio infernale in the front office? Constituting knowledgeability regarding our club history, and might I suggest 3 tough minded individuals?
Schottenheimer-Crennel-Mangini…Exclamation!
That would be a thing to behold.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 2, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
