Mike Holmgren is the New President of the Cleveland Browns
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 21, 2009 7:46 PM EST
in General News
429 comments
Welcome to Cleveland, Mike Holmgren.
After a week or so of rumors on exactly what Holmgren's "czar" position would entail, it was announced today that he accepted the offer to become the new team president of the Cleveland Browns. From the team's press release:
The Cleveland Browns announced today that Mike Holmgren has agreed to become club President. The team also has announced that Mike Keenan will transition to the role of Chief Financial Officer.
"We are pleased to announce that Mike Holmgren has agreed to join the Cleveland Browns," said Owner Randy Lerner. "We will spend the rest of the week finalizing the details of the agreement and will make a formal announcement next week, at which time we will make him available to the media."
Earlier in the day, ESPN's Chris Mortensen stated that Holmgren would not be assuming the coaching duties of the team next season:
"He's not going to coach the Browns," Mort said. "Put that aside and forget it. But Mike Holmgren is going to be running the Browns by the first of the year -- there's no question about that."
Over the weekend, it was reported that Holmgren had turned down an offer to rejoin the Seahawks in a similar position because he would not be interacting directly with team owner Paul Allen. Randy Lerner is obviously giving him that privilege, which basically means Holmgren will have a lot of control over the team next season.
The team is expected to make a more formal introduction of Holmgren later this week, where he will also be available to answer the media's question. I'm sure one of the hot topics will be the status of current head coach Eric Mangini. Mangini's Browns got off to a horrible start this season (1-11), but are 2-0 over the last two weeks and have two winnable games to close out the season; both of those games will be played at home.
0 recs |
429 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
At first I wanted Mangini gone. Now, I kind of feel like he deserves another year…Oh and how quick can Holmgren sign Cribbs to a contract accompanied by a blank check?
Blogging Suns Basketball. Twitter: @willcantrellphx
by Wil Cantrell on Dec 21, 2009 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
I applaud this move to hire Holmgren. Who would have been better? This guy has proven on more than one team that he knows what needs to be done to put a winning product on the field. I like his emphasis on the QB position—most teams that get to the post season and the championship have elite or very good quarterbacks. True, there are exceptions to this but it is more typical that good teams have outstanding QB play.
As far as Mangini goes… I think the decision to retain him should have more to do with the future than the past. That is, what coach Mangini has accomplished this past year should not be the deciding factor either way. You can point to some success and some failure but the amount evidence is just not adequate given the time he has had with the team and other factors which he inherited. The deciding factor should be Holmgren’s vision for the direction of the Browns and the ability of Mangini to fit into that vision. This hire is a commitment to Holmgren and it needs to come with the permission and capability to start with a clean slate. If Holmgren and Mangini cannot work together or have significantly different ideas on the future of the Cleveland Browns, then Mangini needs to go. If this happens, it would not necessarily be an indictment of Mangini but a realization that there are clashing football philosophies that cannot coexist. A Holmgren vs Mangini Death Match might be fun to watch from a distance but the Browns would suffer as a result.
Brownsyup
Mangini is gone
I was completely against the hiring of Holmgren but now that’s it’s done I agree with you Brownsyup that it’s Holmgren’s show and he needs to do what he thinks is right and there’s no reason for any half-hearted measures. He needs to go out and get his kind of GM and his kind of coach and get this team moving. I’m not interested in another 4-12 season but that’s what Lerner has signed us up for. If it works great and if it doesn’t then all you season ticket holders will have contributed to Holmgren’s golden parachute. Enjoy.
by cleveland.brown on Dec 22, 2009 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
we shouldn’t all assume that mangini is gone. you say holmgren needs to get “his kind of coach.” we don’t know that that won’t end up being mangini. i’m sure we’ll find out a lot more now that the hiring is official.
If he wants a west coast offense, just get a new offensive coordinator
fixed
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I really like this move. I didn’t want Lerner to give Holmgren too much reponsibility but it sounds like he won’t be coaching. We need him to build up the front office and be the leader and public voice of this team. As Pluto said, he needs to hire a good personnel man as GM and hopefully keep Mangini as coach and they can build this team together. Mangini has some good qualities but also some weaknesses, and hopefully Holmgren can help cover up some of those weaknesses. Mangini isn’t a good public face of the franchise because he’s not good at communicating; that’s what we need Holmgren to do. He needs to keep Mangini from doing the stupid things that get him in trouble (i.e. the bus trip, taking down the mural, etc). I really think this partnership can work if they both work together to bring out the best in each other. Often times it’s good to have someone with a different opinion to challenge your ideas; I just hope their egos don’t clash too much.
He needs tokeep Mangini from doing the stupid things that get him in troublekeep the media from spinning things in such a way that keeps him from getting in trouble.
The bus trip was probably a mistake. The water bottle fine never happened, the injury because of letting a padded player hit an unpadded player never happened, and wasn’t the mural thing at worst up in the air? Still, someone who isn’t so tight-lipped and who can help explain these types of things will be good.
I was pretty sure the injury happened, or else Davis would be playing
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 21, 2009 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
It wasn’t what was spun by the media though. The media made it sound like Mangini took Davis out behind the barn with a bat. We were scrutinized by the Union and we passed. No fault.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions
I never was too concerned with the fines, practices, bus trip, etc. etc. My biggest concerns with Mangini are his sometimes inexplicable game day decisions, and how he handled last years draft.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 21, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
C’mon, you have to admit that Mangini has made some mistakes. Maybe the media has taken some things too far, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t screwed up.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
The bus trip was probably a mistake.
Hiring Daboll was another. Not finding a way to get the 2nd rounders on the field in a productive role. The QB situation prior to Quinn’s second stint.
Still, some of the things the media have come up with…unpadded players being hit by padded ones? Really?
It’s nice to have one writer at the PD who can actually write.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Amen. The man has no agenda and makes a lot of sense a lot of the time.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 21, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions
Two, actually — Brian Windhorst is fantastic.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not familiar with him. He doesn’t cover the Browns does he (Browns coverage being the only use I have for the PD).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
Ah, that explains it. I hate basketball.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
Pretty much sums up my feelings. I just don’t like to hear anyone dismiss this out of hand. What would the alternative be? Hire in a GM/President and neuter him? For the first time in a long time I have faith that this is the right decision. I didn’t feel that way when Mangini was hired, I didn’t feel that way during Mangini’s PR mistakes, and I still don’t trust him now. Please don’t automatically hate me here, but as much as I am ECSTATIC that we beat Pittsburgh, and found the KC game also fun to watch, I am not ready to automatically give Mangini another year.
If Holmgren comes in and keeps Mangini, then I’m sure it would be the right move. If Holmgren comes in and decides to part ways, then I’m sure it would be the right move. We finally have a guy with real football credentials and I’m happy.
…as far as I’m concerned Mangini can stay or be let go and I would understand both decisions. I’m fairly confident he will remain unless there is a major clash of personalities.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 21, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
One thing confused me about Pluto’s article. He said that since Holmgren hadn’t been scouting this year he would need to bring in someone else who had been in order to make good use of those 11 picks. Sounds good. But wouldn’t anyone who has been scouting this year already be on someone else’s payroll? I really don’t know that much about that side of the game, but I just assumed that there weren’t a lot (or any) free-lance scouts running around out there.
Probably. But that may mean a bump up in position for someone or the Browns flat out buy another team’s scouting director.
And I believe Phil Savage went out scouting players just in case a team called. Obviously the Browns won’t hire Savage back, but I have to believe that there are other out-of-work scouting guys keeping up with the game.
The media has had it out for Eric because he gives them very little information. So instead of reporting on the details of the team, they criticize the coach. Honestly, I think this is the way Mangini likes it. He isn’t giving away “competitive advantage”. He also is taking the brunt of it himself rather than his players. Look at Brady Quinn. He is playing below expectations but he is not getting the kind of public criticism that Tim Couch was. This is my favorite aspect of Mangini’s coaching and I think it’s been overlooked.
by Bumblyjack on Dec 21, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
This is an interesting take. I think I agree.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
he gives them very little information
He gives the fans very little information too. Now that isn’t reason hate / call for the firing of a coach by any means, but I for one do find it very irritating.
The bottom line is Mangini has lost the benefit of the doubt. Secrecy is fine, if there is a plan behind the closed door and the result is success.
I was a defender of Mangini for most of the year. But after the struggles of the entire team, especially the offense for the first 2/3 of the season, the burden is now on him:
- Where has Harrison been all year?
- Why did Lewis get so many carries?
- What is the game plan against good defenses?
- Why did Daboll keep his job?
We can make assumptions, but now Mangini has to sell these decisions to Holmgren. If he can’t, he’ll likely be looking for work.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
We should have to give Daboll a little bit of credit for both the Chiefs game and Lions game. Additionally, even though the offense really didn’t do a lot against Pittsburgh, I really liked that gameplan given the conditions.
Other than that, the results and schemes were poor.
I appreciate some things about Daboll. His commitment to plays that work and making the other team stop him is commendable. His dedication to a strong running attack. His improvement as the year has gone on.
My personal thought is that this doesn’t make up for his shortcomings, inexperience, lack of creativity, and etc.
I’m sure this makes up a big part of Mangini’s defense of the decision to keep him. But my point is, it isn’t good enough. He has to make that case vocally. And while he probably won’t ever do it publicly to the media or fans, he now will be forced to do so with Holmgren.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Right, and they should. Holmgren has 100 times more credibility when it comes to offense, and he should be the guiding force offensively for this team.
I don’t have links right now, but I thought I remembered Harrison’s lack of playing
time being attributed to poor practicing.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
I really disagree with this. The media doesn’t have it out for Mangini — he makes a lot of questionable decisions and then never attempts to defend those decisions, so all you get is the anti-Mangini point of view. If he would present an alternative viewpoint, they would report it. I know you’re saying that Mangini wants it that way, but if that’s the case he’s committing career suicide, and I don’t think Mangini’s that dumb.
I think that, like many of Belichick’s disciples, he thinks that Bill is successful because he is an uncommunicative jerk. I would argue that Bill is successful despite that trait, but regardless, Mangini is trying to mimic him.
And I think Quinn is getting just as much criticism as Couch got: most of Cleveland thinks that both players sucked. So that’s the same.
My first reaction- fist pump.
This is a great day for the Cleveland Browns and the fans. Mike Holmgren is one of the most accomplished and respected people in professional football over the last 25-30 years.
What does this mean for Mangini? Not all that much. I know there weren’t high expectations and he orchestrated the total and needed rebuild of the Browns. But he has had dozens of on and off the field problems. He has underachieved even the lowest of those expectations.
His offense and defense are amongst the least efficient in the league. Bad PR and questionable professionalism consumed the first 9 months of his time in Cleveland.
What I’m saying is that Mangini’s job status for 2010 needed to be reviewed and questioned no matter who was his boss. That Mike Holmgren is making this review and decision on Mangini’s future instead of Randy Lerner makes me relieved and excited.
Fist pump.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 8:40 PM EST via mobile reply actions
What are these ‘dozens of on and off the field problems’ you speak of?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Seriously?
The lack of creativity or comprtence in the offensive playcalling and design.
The bus trip.
The quarterback play.
The handling of the QB situation.
The opportunities for Jennings and Harrison for 2/3 of the season.
The defense’s meltdowns in the second half.
The lack of DB depth.
The Kokinis situation and its management.
Jamal Lewis, a team leader,vocally quit on him.
Questionable game management.
Bad play at home.
Bad play within the division.
The play of the Cleveland Browns.
Look, I know you are supportive of Mangini. I know this is a rebuilding year. But for 10 weeks this was a historically awful offense. We are 3-11. Any team in this league that has that bad of a record has basic and deep issues.
I’m sorry I’d you can’t find 12 problems on this team. I am the first to praise Mangini’s efforts in the draft and trades/free agency. But that means you have to also be willing to give him the blame front office moves too.
it isn’t perfect logic, but think of this: if Mangini is fired tomorrow, would he ever be considered for a head coaching job in the NFL? I don’t think so.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 9:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
Has nothing to do with the Steelers game.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
if you don’t think there’s been improvement since the bye week you aren’t watching the games
by notthatnoise on Dec 21, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
Very True
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 7:52 AM EST up reply actions
First, 12 problems aren’t ‘dozens’ of problems. Going right down the list:
1. Thin roster. How creative could they be with a two rookie recievers, no tight end, Captain stutter-step, and Braylon.
2. Media generated controversy.
3. Neither QB is his. Both inherited. Both bad.
4. I wish he had gone back to Quinn a few games earlier, but otherwise I see no problem with the way the QBs were handled. He gave them both the opportunity to earn the position (competition at every position). Unfortunately, neither rose to the occasion (which is understandable given the lack of developed talent around them).
5. Jennings still hasn’t done shit, and Harrison has had two good games (one great, obviously) in his 4 year career (and he looked bad just last week against Pittsburgh). We still need a running back.
6. Thin roster made worse by injury. Playing hard, just not enough talent on the field to get results.
7. Thin roster. Few draft picks and zero cap space. This is what Mangini inherited.
8. Agree. Though half of that is on Lerner.
9. Part of creating a winning culture is weeding out those who won’t buy in. Good riddance.
10. I think he’s doing the best he can with a young roster and a thin roster. How many practice squad players are starters now?
11. Apart from the Packers game, I don’t see it. They’ve had a tough home schedule thus far and been in several of the games.
12. They played the Bengals tough twice (once taking them to the end of overtime), held the Ravens to 16 once, and beat the Steelers at home. With the talent on our roster, I’d say that that’s pretty decent.
13. Exactly how many games did you think we were going to win this year, and, more to the point, should Mangini be held to account for not meeting your expectations when the team has already surpassed the expectations of a guy like Peter King who seems to know a bit about football?
7.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
Heh. Whe’d that come from…?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
Harrison averages 5.2 yards per carry in the NFL for his entire career. “Two good games” is specious to the point of comical.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
When a player only has 200 carries in four years, there has to be a reason.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
Or a GM who picks players who don’t fit the scheme.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
There is no scheme where a player with Harrison’s talents can’t be utilized.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
You’d think, but blocking is important, especially when you had a Tight End (K2) who couldn’t block to save his life.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
Eh, I think RB blocking is overrated. Being poor at it certainly doesn’t outweigh the homerun threat that he is. What’s so maddening about his usage isn’t so much the aggregate volume, but how sporadic it was/is, with both coaches. Harrison may not be a feature back, but any coach should consistently give him 10-12 carries. If the Giants could find carries for three backs, how can we not get carries for two?
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Eh, I think RB blocking is overrated.
I’d say it’s incredibly underrated because most fans never see it unless something goes wrong.
I’d say it’s incredibly overrated b/c it actually comes into play about 4% of offensive snaps.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Really? A running back is required to block on 4% of offensive snaps? Considering pass plays are called about 50-60% of the time in the NFL I find that percentage very hard to believe.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 9:46 AM EST up reply actions
Hyperbole notwithstanding, the only time a RB really has to block, in my opinion, is when the D calls a jailbreak blitz. Otherwise, i think 6 men can do the job (5 lineman and a TE or FB). All these plays Harrison can be in there as either a threat to run or a passing route. Eliminate the times he runs, and the passing plays absent a 6/7 man blitz, and I think 4% is pretty accurate.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Sometimes the FB and/or TE go out for a pass.
Sometimes there is a 6/7 man blitz (not as infrequent as you think, especially in our division).
And the other team has coaches and gameplans. Quinn and Anderson have struggled against the blitz. Harrison has struggled picking up the blitz. Harrison is in the game? BLITZ.
4% is not a serious estimate. I’d guess 40%.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Well, you’re wrong. This isn’t an opinion matter. Almost all NFL offenses run a check-release system based on BoB principles (Big on Big, Back on Back.) That means the back will be responsible for someone on every play, whether they are blitzing or not.
Blocking isn’t just standing around and picking up someone who goes unblocked. There is someone you are responsible for, mentally and physically, on almost every play. It is much more sophisticated than you believe it to be.
I thought we ran a lot of different protections i.e. BoB, Bob/slide hybrid on either side, and probably some full on slide (at least on the Quinn rollout stuff) so that defenses couldn’t destroy our double-read player?
Especially pitt and Baltimore who run so many switches/replacements with defenders showing blitz and dropping out?
Regardless, Harrison would have to block sometimes.
Any percentage I throw out there can immediately be at least doubled, assuming we run the ball 50% of the time. So essentially I’m saying 8% of passing plays, or about one in ten. Perhaps a little low, but claiming RBs block 80% of passing plays (as Ryan and others are) is ridiculous.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I believe that blocking is important.
However, when you are lacking really any people who can be “playmakers” outside of Cribbs and Harrison, you’ve got to work with what you have. At some point, you have to abandon some sort of Platonic ideal of the game of football and find a way to use what little you have.
There would be ways to use Harrison and pretty much state “there is flat out no way this kid is blocking” when you put him in the game and still remain a balanced and at least somewhat unpredictable offense.
I should do some tinkering and make a post on this.
In some ways I agree, but when it comes to blocking, especially for a back, 90% is effort. If he wasn’t putting forth the effort, do you reward him by altering the game plan to suit what he’s willing to do? It’s an interesting question for sure.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
This is a fair argument. And, to be clear, I am not arguing that blocking is the only reason he wasn’t playing. He could have just not taken his job very seriously for a while. There could be a bunch of reasons that we are not privy to. I just think it’s a little ridiculous to believe two separate NFL staffs wouldn’t play Harrison out of spite.
Two head coaches and four OCs have kept him on the bench for some reason.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Actually, didn’t Savage hire the coordinators?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
This is a fair argument. And, to be clear, I am not arguing that blocking is the only reason he wasn’t playing. He could have just not taken his job very seriously for a while. There could be a bunch of reasons that we are not privy to. I just think it’s a little ridiculous to believe two separate NFL staffs wouldn’t play Harrison out of spite.
But you are assuming he has always had these talents, or at least always demonstrated these talents. There is absolutely zero reason the coaches wouldn’t play a player who helps them win. It’s very possible that Harrison was inconsistent or flat-out not good in practice. Two separate coaching staffs came in and had the same issue with him. It’s not like there’s a gigantic, league-wide conspiracy against Jerome Harrison.
Exactly. I’m not saying Harrison isn’t a nice player, because he is, but let’s not assume that he is some future star who has been held back by his coaches for the past four years.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
I think Romeo would have not played him to get Jamal more touches near the end of his coaching tenure. Still, there is no conspiracy, just something I see as coaches being unwilling to adapt to the player.
Harrison has averaged high yards per touch numbers since he began to see game action. I do think this past weekend was an anomaly, but there would be no reason to think he couldn’t have been a contributor to an offense that has been as bad as ours, 2007 excepted.
It can’t be just bad coaching. Two different coaches wouldn’t make the same mistake if he were really that talented. Plenty of NFL running backs have been great in small amounts but couldn’t sustain it over the long haul, so you can’t assume that a few great games would translate in to consistancy over a full season. If he were really that good then the coaches would have played him more. They’re not all that stupid.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you, and that Lee Suggs guy is gonna be a beast next year! why was he ever playing behind Green?
by notthatnoise on Dec 21, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
when you have about 200 carries total all it takes is two good games to have a huge average like that. take out those two games, and what are his stats like?
by notthatnoise on Dec 21, 2009 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Still pretty good, though normally you’d expect the numbers to fall off with such a huge outlier and so few carries. He can run the ball, no doubt. It’s been other aspects of his game that have kept him on the sidelines.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
Those were 13 very general issues off the top of my head.
I’m not inclined to give him as much of a pass because what he inherited. He has been the de facto GM and while I like a lot of his moves, he didn’t do enough. This is the NFL: near total rebuild is possible in a year.
I’m not impressed with Peter King. Good reporter. Bad analyst.
You are being way too easy on the offense. The D has some excuse because of injury and being on the field too much. But this offense has looked terrible. There is a ton of bad coaching, planning, and personnel decisions on that side of the ball.
I’m not impressed with 1-5 in the division. Even the Bengals close loss was due to bad coaching. The Browns played way too much 2 deep man under and Palmer exploited it by running to set up the winning FG. They’ve mixed in more zone since, but it was too late.
I expected the Browns to win 7 games this year. But W-L isn’t my issue. It is the negative stories in the press- some that have more merit than others, the lack of offensive effectivenessn the stubborness in staying too long with an overwhelmed OC and a aging slow).
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 11:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think it’s funny that he’s painting this picture of Mangini taking over a hopeless Browns team that had very little talent and he’s not at fault for the bad record, because before the season almost everyone here thought we were going to improve on last seaon’s record and the consesus was we’d have around 6-8 wins. I don’t remember what he said specifically, and maybe he wasn’t even here, but many people didn’t see us being his bad at all. So that all seems like revisionist history.
And it’s even funnier that he’s quoting Peter King’s preseason predictions, because if you look back in August people here were bashing King for predicting us to be so bad. They all expected us to be much better than that (and they were all wrong) and called King an idiot for saying that. But I guess when his prediction proves your point then he’s an “expert”.
The point being that not many people here saw us being this bad before the season so the team, and Mangini, has certainly underpeformed no matter what excuses anyone wants to make. They’ve looked better the last few weeks, for sure, but that doesn’t take away from how terrible they looked for the first two months.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Almost everyone on here is a fan. Hope is like dope.
I wasn’t here in August. I thought we were a four to six win team. And that included wins against Denver and Cincinnati and Detroit (and didn’t include a win against Pittsburgh).
The point being that not many people here saw us being this bad before the season so the team, and Mangini, has certainly underpeformed no matter what excuses anyone wants to make. They’ve looked better the last few weeks, for sure, but that doesn’t take away from how terrible they looked for the first two months.
Random people on the internet thought that the Browns were better than they’ve been so since they haven’t met the expectations of random people on the internet, fans no less, they’ve obviously under performed. That’s just absurd. Check my signature if you need a reminder of what random people on the internet think.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with the point that getting a consensus of fans on the internet doesn’t really prove a point one way or the other even if we all disagreed strongly with King’s original prediciton.
After watching reality set in early this year, I think it’s clear that 2008 was not an aberration, but 2007 was. The team did not have a lot of talent and still needs a lot more talent.
Mangini has had negatives and positives, I do agree with that, but he deserves more than a year given the way the team is playing right now after going through a dreadful open to the season. It doesn’t matter how the wins came, the team is playing hard and is looking better.
You guys are missing my point. It wasn’t that the consensus of fans on the internet was right or wrong, it is about how some people’s opinion can change whenever it suites their viewpoint. Before the season many people on here were saying that 2008 was an abberrition because of bad coaching and injuries to the QB’s (myself included) and that we could be around .500 this year with good offseason moves and good coaching. Now, people who are defending Mangini are saying that the Browns were in terrible shape this offseason and needed a total overhaul so this bad record was to be expected. It seems as though some people are changing their views to fit their message.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 7:52 AM EST up reply actions
He got rid of people that had to go. We didnt have the players to contend, Mangini saw this, loaded up with draft picks, who thought it could turn around in one year? Who are these “many people” that said 2008 was an aberration? 2007, look at the schedule they played, that is what made that season successful. That and Derek Anderson was an unknown, once teams figured out how to take care of him, well you have seen his performance.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 7:57 AM EST up reply actions
who thought it could turn around in one year? Who are these "many people" that said 2008 was an aberration?
Go read the post about our preseason predictions and you’ll see. A few people here were even talking playoffs if everything went right.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions
This.
If you look back at the preseason prediction thread here on DBN. I think I was the low man with 5 wins.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but using DBN’s community projections (which will clearly be skewed toward the optimistic side) does not change whether or not we had sufficient talent.
I agree fans are always optimistic, but there’s a big difference between 8 or 9 win talent and 3 win talent. We aren’t that optimistic.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
there’s also a difference between 3 win talent and 5 win talent, so lets wait and see how the season shakes out.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
I was waiting for someone to say that. You’re right, they could win the last two games, but does anyone really think that’s likely? We’re going to start 1-11 then win four in a row? Doubtful.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
Not that it matters, but our schedule weighted heavily toward the start of the season both in terms of quality of opponent and in terms of away games vs. home games.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Not to mention we basically had the Lions game won and took the Bengals to OT. We aren’t that far from 5 wins.
2 close losses. That’s nothing. Remember 01-02. Those teams weren’t “that far” from 12-13 wins.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Right. Every team in the NFL has 4 or 5 close losses a year, at least. That’s the difference between good and bad teams in the NFL.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
i think our next two opponents are about equal to our last two, so yes, i think its likely.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
I definitely remember thinking Braylon would still be on this team, produce, and that we’d get solid production out of Robiskie, and would probably get production out of at least one of Lewis/Davis. I also thought we’d see Brady all year and that he would play like he did in 2008/the second half of this year. I thought St. Clair would be decent and that Tucker would be healthy and starting. I thought McDonald would be more of a pro and start tackling, not stop being able to cover, too. I didn’t think we’d have what, 3 uninjured starters on D? I thought our offensive coordinator would have a solid plan of attack sometime in the first 2/3 of the year. I thought we’d use Jerome Harrison a lot more. I thought Robert Royal could catch wide-open passes over 50% of the time.
So yes, I was highly incorrect about the talent level of the team. I could just as easily be incorrect when I see us needing to add a lot of talent to be good.
And really it wouldn’t take a lot of players, just a lot of talent. Just a ROT, a true #1 WR, Eric Berry, and a #2 corner, and we are looking at a much improved team. 3/5 of our OL is outstanding, including one of the hardest pieces to find in all of football. I like our defensive front 7, which I think is one or two guys away from being crazy-good.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
the point is though they realized their assessment of the situation was wrong in the preseason. that was wishful thinking. in REALITY, not looking through rose-colored classes, this team had very little talent and shouldn’t have been expected to do much better than they are.
thats the key word here, “should.” whatever our expectations were, they were unrealistic. are you saying we should stick to an opinion once we realize its wrong?
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:05 AM EST up reply actions
I think this team certainly could have done better than starting out 1-11. There is more talent here than that.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
I think I predicted 7 wins based upon the idea that the team would play about the same and that we had an easier schedule on paper. I think a lot of people made the same mistake in that a couple of teams we expected to beat turned out to be better than expected, namely the Bengals and Denver. That is 3 games. It is pretty clear that we will end up at 5-11 or 4-11 at this point.
I think it was a lot to expect a new coach to come in and significantly improve what was a very poor team at the end of 2008. That is why I predicted what I did and how that prediction went awry.
Brownsyup
are you saying we should stick to an opinion once we realize its wrong
I believe you should be a man and stick to your assessment of the team but change your expectations.
The major problem i have with the flip-flopping is for the fact that its being used as justification for Mangini apologists moreso than simply being a “change of opinion”. The fact is that these are the same players that were here for Game 1. But the assessment of talent is totally different in the eyes of people who thought this team would have won more games when its the same players.
So If you believed this team had enough talent to win 7 games, regardless of rose-colored glasses or not, then you should believe that this team still has that talent and the only thing holding them back is the coaching. Because if this team was actually successful, then everyone would be giving Mangini all of the credit.
So I don’t know whether to give write off all of the Mangini fluffing and .500 optimism at the beginning of the season as extreme wishful thinking optimism…or just plain stupidity and blindness. For the ones who stick to their opinion, its the former. But for the ones who are now flip-flopping and downplaying the talent of the team in order to make themselves feel better for being so wrong and make Mangini’s failure seem justified, its the later.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 22, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
ok, so i should “be a man” and stick to an asssessment I know was wrong?
If you believed this team had enough talent to win 7 games, regardless of rose-colored glasses or not, then you should believe that this team still has that talent and the only thing holding them back is the coaching.
the thing is we’re admitting we were wrong in thinking they had that much talent. why should i stick to that when its blatantly obvious they didn’t have 7 win talent, regardless of what people may have believed?
example: we all thought the broncos were going to suck and that they had a terrible locker room situation. should we still believe that their coach sucks and they all hate each other? no. its obvious their coach is pretty good and the team hadn’t turned against him the way everyone thought they did. we were wrong. we can admit that
also, you just called people blind and stupid as well as challenging their manhood all in one post.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
also, you just called people blind and stupid as well as challenging their manhood all in one post.
This is the internet. It’s to be expected.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
this is DBN, where that kind of stuff is generally frowned upon, to keep this from becoming a flame war.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, if we aren’t allowed to realize our past errors, than the implication is that your first guess is always your best and only allowed guess. This kind of opinion is ludicrous particularly when we were basing our guesses without even having seen the team play yet. Going forward I am not allowed to change my mind on players after actually having seen them play real games?
And by some people, Brad means me, which is totally unfounded and untrue.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I don’t mean you, specifically. I said above that I wasn’t sure if you were around in August making preseason predictions, and you answered that question. I’m talking about the general tone of many people on this site. So please stop accusing me of meaning things that I don’t.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
I think it’s funny that he’s painting this picture of Mangini taking over a hopeless Browns team that had very little talent and he’s not at fault for the bad record, because before the season almost everyone here thought we were going to improve on last seaon’s record and the consesus was we’d have around 6-8 wins.
I don’t know how I’m supposed to take that then. Whether it was your intention or not, you’ve conflated my opinion with the consensus opinion and then used the consensus opinion to dismiss my opinion.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
I said “he” because that was you making that statement. But it has been echoed by many other people on this site, and that’s why I mentioned a few times that I wasn’t responding only to you but to the opinion of many people on this site. I repeated that a couple times, so I don’t don’t what else you want me to say.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
Would your opinion be different if the Browns were having a second half like their first half?
Things have been better since the bye week, but sports are the ultimate ‘what have you done for me lately?’ Point is, most of us have felt better about the play the last several weeks, but I think the question is: Is this really the beginning of a trend, is the team really coalescing around Mangini’s vision and are these real marks of progress?
by Western Reserve on Dec 22, 2009 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
If the Browns now looked as bad as they did at the end of 08, then obviously my opinion would be different.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
it is about how some people’s opinion can change whenever it suites their viewpoint.
whaaaat!!!!!
I’ve been saying this ALL SEASON!!!!!!!!
And you were the MAIN person going against me for saying this EXACT THING!!!!
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 22, 2009 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
What exactly was I going against you for saying? I’m not sure what you mean. I know you’ve been criticizing every single move the Browns have made this year, and I’ve disagreed with you for that because I think Mangini has made some good moves (and some poor ones, too). So I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to here.
You pretty much disagreed with anyone who said anything positive. That has nothing to do with people changing their viewpoint, that’s just being negative and argumentative.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, there is a difference between thinking every single move is a bad one and critiquing people who’s opinion changes with the wind. I am somewhat guilty of the latter, I thought we were better than we were.
For me the main switch came when I realized that our QBs just really aren’t very good and that Braylon Edwards is not near as good as I thought he was. Once that reality set in, my expectations were changed dramatically. I think it is perfectly reasonable to come to this conclusion based on on what I saw this year.
I’m right with you in that last paragraph. I fully expected Braylon to bounce back from his drops last season and put together a quality year and I also expected Brady to play much better than he has this season. The bad QB play along with the trade of Edwards pretty much gutted our offense and gave us very few playmakers. So I think it’s fair to say we were overly optimistic this year. But how much of that bad play by Quinn, and the offense in general, is the fault of the coaches?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
i can’t find the exact quote above but i’ll respond to it here since you posted it.
it is about how some people’s opinion can change whenever it suites their viewpoint.
maybe peoples viewpoints change because of their opinions, which were changed because of evidence. is it always a bad thing to change a viewpoint, even when evidence suggests you should?
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Agree to disagree, though I think the one year rebuild requires a better cap situation and a more draft picks than Mangini inherited.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
should Mangini be held to account for not meeting your expectations when the team has already surpassed the expectations of a guy like Peter King who seems to know a bit about football?
Really Peter King?
If you are going to use a reporter as your measuring stick, use one who is better than 2-8 in his preseason division winners. The freaking boob predicted that the Saints and Colts would end up a combined 17-15 and picked the Bears as his NFC Champ.
Aim higher.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
Which goes to show that preseason predictions aren’t a good measuring stick for determining whether a team over performed or under performed.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed, your underlying point was that “consensus” preseason predictions are meaningless. I agree with your assessment of the talent we had on the teams being poor. I was in loser denial before the season, but having watched 2008 and 2009 now, it’s pretty clear that we fluked into 2007. At least in my eyes.
Well, as I mention every time this gets brought up, it’s pretty hard to pick the records of NFL teams before the season starts. Their is just so much variation in a team from year to year, as we’ve seen so many times in the past few years. If all of us had to make preseason predictions before the season began than many of us would look like a “freaking boob” as well.
Also, I think King tries to pick a “surprise” team every year instead of going with the same teams who were great last season, which is why he picked the Bears this year. Obviously that hasn’t worked out, but remember that before the season everyone thought they’d be much improved with the trade for Cutler. It’s easy to make fun of him now but it didn’t look so bad at the time. Who would have thought last August the Cardinals would end up in the Super Bowl?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 7:58 AM EST up reply actions
Jamal Lewis, a team leader,vocally quit on him.
Good riddance.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
Worth repeating, again.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
Could have said that differently I’m sure, but really….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 1:20 AM EST up reply actions
Wow only four comments. I like the move. I did not start out a Mangini fan, but he has the team, this is evident after yesterdays game. The players want to play for him.
Give Mangini a shot next year, pray for a solid draft and see what 2010 brings.
Good day for the Browns.
My hopes for a good draft just went out the window.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
If Mangini stays, we’re entering the draft with a president and a coach who run entirely different schemes. If Mangini goes, we’re entering the draft needing more players than if he stayed (our offensive players not being particularly well suited to the west coast and our defensive players not being particularly well suited to the 4-3). Either way, we’re a team in flux. At a time when we should be a good long way into draft preparation like every other team in the league that isn’t in flux, instead we have no idea who the coach is, what schemes will be run next year, and who the GM and Personnel Director are.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
We beat the Steelers. Awesome. We beat KC. Good. Neither of those two wins should guarantee Mangini another year. Before the Steelers game there was not one person calling for him to stay. If you are ready to commit to another year based on those two games, then so be it. But I think I can speak for almost everyone out there when I say this. Holmgren coming to Cleveland has many more positives than Mangini staying here. And I’m talking long term.
Mangini never ever should have been hired. But he was. Do you think Manigni is the guy to take us to the Super Bowl? Not by himself or with a Kokinis clone.
i don’t think you’ve been around this site very long if you think nobody wanted mangini back for another year before the steelers game.
by notthatnoise on Dec 21, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
agree there.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 7:59 AM EST up reply actions
Did Mangini have a good draft last year?
I think he did for the most part.
We have much more certainty and continuity now than we had this time last year.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 9:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I honestly think the perceived success of the draft last year is still up for debate. However, that is not even in the top ten reasons why i don’t trust Mangini.
Yeah, I don’t want to rehash the 2009 draft here. We’ve done it too much on this site and it is still over a year too soon.
But I like I listed above, the draft isn’t the reasoin to question Mangini’s future.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 9:35 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Don’t forget, He had really good drafts with the Jets.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 8:00 AM EST up reply actions
I think completely busting on one of three first rounders (not to mention a top 10 pick) eliminates “really good drafts” by definition (both monetarily and player acquisition wise).
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Mangini had five first rounders in his three years with the Jets. Gholston was the only miss. I’ll take an 80% hit rate any day of the week (and so would every team in the league).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
I just looked everywhere, but I couldn’t find it.
After the draft, someone, I think it was either Banks or King, reported on how the Browns handled the ’07 draft.
The biggest suprise for me was that Revis was the number 2 player on Savages board behind Thomas, and Savage said that if Thomas went at 2 to Detroit that the Browns would have taken Revis over Quinn and Peterson.
I think that the top 5 of Savages board was:
1. Thomas
2. Revis
3. Calvin Johnson
4. Quinn
5. Peterson
I really wish I could find that article.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
I feel more comfortable standing behind Savage’s eye for talent knowing Russel is nowhere in that top 5.
It wouldn’t be out of the ordinary that he used “draft season” smoke and mirrors to drum up buzz for a kid he really likes personally, and has an intimate history with, even if he had no intention whatsoever of drafting him.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I don’t know that this is right though. There were a number of rumors on draft day that Savage was trying to trade up with Oakland to take Russell number 1 overall. He also even said in his pre-draft presser that he loved Russell and thought he would be a great pro QB (having worked with him a lot at camps in Alabama)
That is why I was so suprised.
Something about the Russell talk was to make sure that no one, I think the worry was the Cardinals, trading up in front of us to get Thomas.
So Savage used Russell as his fake name.
It really pisses me off I can’t find it so I can fill in these blanks.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
The early returns on the 09 draft are good. The problem is we’re either heading into this draft with a coach and president who are pulling in two different directions scheme wise, or we’re blowing it up again. I think Holmgren and whoever he brings with him will be perfectly capable of drafting well this spring if Mangini’s gone, but the results will be similar to this year, we’ll be thin on talent and inexperienced and have many players who are ill suited to our new schemes. Do we blow it up again this time next year then?
Either way, we’re playing catch up from here to the draft. Stable teams (including teams like the Chiefs and Rams) are already deep into draft preparation.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Not Robo or David “where am I” Veikune
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 21, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
The Chiefs and Rams are stable teams? Really? The Chiefs fired their offensive coordinator the week before the regular season started and many people think Haley might be fired after this year (or he’s certainly going to replace most of his assistants). That doesn’t really sound like stability to me.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
in the fact that they suck every year
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 21, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Pioli? Is he on the outs?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm… The Big Ten might be losing a good coach then.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah. Ferenz, I think.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions
Theres a T in there somewhere. I know it.
And that’s who I wanted in the first place if we had picked up Pioli.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
I am not a fan of Ferentz.
He wins every four years or so and everyone thinks he is a genius.
I don’t get it.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
College to pros is generally not a very successful endeavor anyway, so I definitely don’t want a guy who is probably a slightly above average college coach.
Didn’t he go pro to college first though? Not arguing for him, but I think that makes a difference somewhat.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I’m pretty sure he was an assistant under Belichick with the Browns before going to Iowa.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 8:00 AM EST up reply actions
But it’s hard to win in Iowa. I think it’s that he has good teams with very few high-profile recruits, and he’s turned many of them in to NFL players.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 8:01 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, you were right. It’s Ferentz. I looked it up.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions
He’s been there one year. Since when is that stability?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
This is the first I’ve heard that Haley’s on the hot seat. I knew about the OC, but had forgotten. I’m not arguing that they’re stable. Clearly a bad example.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
I think one reason we disagree on this is the whole scheme thing. I have no reason to think Holmgren wouldn’t be open to keeping Mangini, Ryan, and/or the 3-4.
Good coaches and GMs can adjust to what they have. Mike Tomlin, for example, was a big 4-3 guy (from the Holmgren tree, if memory serves) and he is now the head coach of the team with the most famous 3-4 around.
Mangini seems to like a strong run game, but in the 2009 NFL, every team uses West Coast concepts. And Air Coryell concepts. And the good ones use college spread concepts. The differences are largely terminology.
Specificaly, Holmgren has shown that he likes to play to the strengths of his team. More of a power running game when he had Alexander and a big, great OLine. More of a passing game when he had a good WR corps and the besrt QB to ever play in his prime.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 11:39 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don’t believe the issue is whether they will coalesce on certain viewpoints, but if that will weaken their ability to find talent. Holmgren has spent almost all of his coaching career looking for players who fit a certain system, and Mangini has spent his time looking for other types of skillsets. They may have different views on what players they want which can make the system untenable with both men around.
Tomlin is from the Bill Walsh tree (Dennis Green-Tony Dungy-Mike Tomlin) the same as Holmgren.
I have no idea why I bring this up.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
I heard Jeff George wants back in the NFL.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions
You should draw up an offense based on nothing more than QB’s and WR’s.
Mooncampings head would explode.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 2:09 AM EST up reply actions
The early returns on the 09 draft are good.
What? Mack has been very good. MoMass has been inconsistent at best.
I am not calling this draft a bust by any means, but to say the returns have been good is a stretch.
Either way, we’re playing catch up from here to the draft. Stable teams (including teams like the Chiefs and Rams) are already deep into draft preparation.
Chiefs and Rams? The Chiefs and Rams?
we’ll be thin on talent and inexperienced and have many players who are ill suited to our new schemes.
First of all, we don’t have a new coach. If we do hire a new coach, what is this great scheme that we will have that will require new players?
What indespensible player do we have on our team that will not fit in on a new regimes roster? Thomas, Mack, Rogers, Cribbs, Stienbach, DQ, etc will fit in any scheme. What am I missing?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 12:55 AM EST up reply actions
What? Mack has been very good. MoMass has been inconsistent at best.
I am not calling this draft a bust by any means, but to say the returns have been good is a stretch.
It is a stretch when you leave out the word ‘early’. That changes the meaning of what i said entirely.
Chiefs and Rams? The Chiefs and Rams?
I already conceded that the Chiefs were a bad example. What of it?
First of all, we don’t have a new coach. If we do hire a new coach, what is this great scheme that we will have that will require new players?
Are we going to pretend that there’s no difference between the 3-4 and the 4-3 now? Between power blocking and zone blocking?
What indespensible player do we have on our team that will not fit in on a new regimes roster? Thomas, Mack, Rogers, Cribbs, Stienbach, DQ, etc will fit in any scheme. What am I missing?
If we move to a zone block scheme, Mack is no longer worth the 1st we used on him.
But it’s not those players that are the concern. Who plays end in a 4-3? Who are our outside linebackers linebackers? If we move to a 4-3 we immediately add at least two holes to fill (depending on where and if Wimbley and Roth fit) on top of the holes at DB that need filled in either scheme.
In moving to a zone blocking scheme we eliminate all of our depth on the O line. Guys like Womack and St. Clair and Hadnot who are still under contract are no longer quality depth. So instead of adding a starting tackle, we’re looking at adding a starting Tackle, a starting Guard, and two or more players as positional depth.
etc…
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
St. Clair and Womack are garbage anyway and are over 30.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
And good quality depth. And still under contract.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
And for being garbage, Womack did pretty good at RT this week. 300 plus yards rushing and all.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Plus, most of the run plays up the middle against KC were zone blocking runs.
by mich_n_trum84 on Dec 22, 2009 6:53 AM EST up reply actions
Not true. Look at the ‘Jerome Harrison Highlights’ video on NFL.com. I counted exactly one pulling Guard in all of the highlights. The rest was straight up in line blocking. Including Fraley who was all the way to the goal line on Harrison’s final TD run.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
That was only because Fraley was next to him.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 8:02 AM EST up reply actions
Well Holmgren drafted Womack so I doubt he would be gone
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Are we going to pretend that there’s no difference between the 3-4 and the 4-3 now? Between power blocking and zone blocking?
Why would the Browns switch to a zone blocking scheme? The Seahawks only changed when Holmgren left, so I really doubt he would change, or demand that Mangini change it, now.
But it’s not those players that are the concern. Who plays end in a 4-3? Who are our outside linebackers linebackers? If we move to a 4-3 we immediately add at least two holes to fill (depending on where and if Wimbley and Roth fit) on top of the holes at DB that need filled in either scheme.
Big deal. We go from having 13 holes to fill to 15. If I was a betting man, I think we are still a 3-4 team next season.
So instead of adding a starting tackle, we’re looking at adding a starting Tackle, a starting Guard, and two or more players as positional depth.
We need a new RG and RT anyway, so why would this matter?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
Wright, Wimbley, Dawson, and big legs Davey Z. they all fit too
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
I say Mangini stays and we draft talent this year and if Mangini is asked to leave next year we still have talent from this year.
To me it’s pretty obvious that we have some holes on our roster. I also think we can have a successful draft with Holmgren as president and Mangini as coach.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
I don’t understand how we can call it a good draft. The trade out of 5 was excellent, Mack was solid, as was Mohammed. Robiskie looks to be a bad pick, and the Veikune selection is far more detrimental to the litany of bad decisions made by former organizations (from Morgan to Williams). After that, we got nothing. James Davis is what Golan thinks Jerome Harrison is, minus the two good games.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
you can’t judge davis or robi yet, and yeah veikune looks like a bust, but you can’t hit them all, i think you’re looking at the draft through a lense of mangini-hate. but we’ve already had this thread, it might still even be on the front page.
by notthatnoise on Dec 21, 2009 10:47 PM EST up reply actions
It’s impossible to discredit James Davis at this point, but then also credit Jerome Harrison. You have to give these guys 2-3 and sometimes even 4 years before we can say for certain if the pick was good.
Agree that you have to leave Davis as a question mark.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 1:22 AM EST up reply actions
Does Holmgren have the say in what scheme we play though? It would be nice to know what his duties were, and I’d expect the details will be revealed soon.
I have a hunch he doesn’t get a say in the scheme. That’s up to the HC.
Which begs the question: will Holmgren and the people he brings in be able to recognize talent that fits Mangini’s schemes?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
I am sure the 4-3/3-4 thing will be one of the first things the two guys talk about. Good news is we’ve played a lot of hybrid stuff over the past few years, I don’t see either guy as not wanting to have a multiple, versatile defense, and both are experts on opposite sides of the ball.
We have scouts. I guarantee they don’t just ignore guys who can be good players because “they don’t fit the scheme”. They would at least take a look for themselves, and then take a closer look at the players in question and determine why.
Changes on offense are welcome at this point, IMO. Holmgren was hired to stabilize and provide direction, he can do that before April.
I honestly don’t think Holmgren was hired to create a team as a mirror image of his other teams. I think he was brought in to help build a winning team. I would hope that Mangini and Holmgren can be professional enough to work together with a focused discipline plan for the team.
Holmgren is not our coach he is our president. Why is it accepted as a given that he is going to try and completely change our schemes?
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
This is absurdly closed-minded. Holmgren had a couple really solid drafts in Seattle. And that was just wheb he had the GM title. He also was a huge part of building championship-caliber teams in seattle and green bay for two decades.
And what’s more, he hasn’t made any indication who will be influencing the browns draft decisions. He has final say, but Mangini or the new head coach will certainly have major input. And he may hire a GM that would have major control. And the various other front office and scouting individuals on the team now or in the future.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 9:19 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I’m pretty sure he’s just saying that to start arguments. Or he’s talked himself in to hating Holmgren so much that he’s not thinking clearly.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t hate Holmgren. I hate instability.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
Common ground. I’ve argued elsewhere, half heartedly, that stability might even be more important than finding “the right guy” (ie, a stable organization run by the 32nd best people in the league is still better than an unstable one)
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I think once you find the right guy then you will have stability. If you have stability with the wrong people then you have Matt Millen in Detroit and we don’t want that.
I don’t think Holmgren is going to be here for the short term so I don’t see this as instability.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 10:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m just tired of rebuilding. If the Holmgren deal is really for 10 years, I am happy about that.
I still think a consistent, top-down vision/principles/etc. are requisites for building a winning franchise. Having Millen at the top won’t help you if you leave him there for 10 years, but we won’t ever become a consistently good team unless we do have stability. So I am cautiously optimistic about the long term success of Holmgren.
Seconded. Tired of rebuilding. Cautiously optimistic in the long term (long term being 4 or 5 years out).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Thirded, kind of. Definitely tired of rebuilding (and rebuilding, and rebuilding….) Still trying to be optimistic.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 2:50 AM EST up reply actions
Like Brad said bad stability is much worse (Millen in Detroit).
And I would argue this hire is all about stability. Without a strong organizational identity, you will have a nonfootball owner struggling to make decisions. A GM was absolutely required.
Bottom line- Mangini lost his power when Lerner first said this czar position would be created. Kokinis was fired. It was blown up then.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 11:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
i don’t see this as a move towards instability however. you seem convinced mangini is gone already, when thats far from decided. ideally, this is a move towards stability, not away from it.
by notthatnoise on Dec 21, 2009 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
It’s very clear that their styles of teams couldn’t be more different. How do you think they could successfully co-exist? The Traveling Wilburys were less than the sum of their parts.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 21, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
If I had a computer I would rec this for the Traveling Wilburys reference.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 11:49 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I thought I was the only one who still knew of them.
Awesome.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions
Big fan of Dylan. The rest of the Wilburys I can do without.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
The third most talented Beatle (behind Lennon and Ringo). I don’t care for any of his post Beatles music.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Ringo did nothing more than change his name, keep beat and sing on a few songs about the ocean that were only made popular due to the musical ingenuity of Lennon and McCartney.
The man had a drum set of essentially three pieces: Snare, bass drum, high hat.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
And his post Beatles albums were the best of the group, save Lennon.
As far as his contribution to the Beatles and his minimalist drum set:
Drummer Steve Smith extolled Starr’s qualities beyond the technical, in terms of his musical contribution as drummer:
"Before Ringo, drum stars were measured by their soloing ability and virtuosity. Ringo’s popularity brought forth a new paradigm in how the public saw drummers. We started to see the drummer as an equal participant in the compositional aspect. One of Ringo’s great qualities was that he composed unique, stylistic drum parts for The Beatles songs. His parts are so signature to the songs that you can listen to a Ringo drum part without the rest of the music and still identify the song."
Phil Collins, the drummer for Genesis, who was himself influenced by Starr, said:
" Starr is vastly underrated. The drum fills on the song “A Day in the Life” are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, ‘I want it like that.’ He wouldn’t know what to do.""
Many drummers acknowledge Starr as an influence, including Steve Gorman of The Black Crowes, Dave Grohl of Nirvana/Foo Fighters, Orri Páll Dýrason of Sigur Rós, Max Weinberg of the E Street Band, Danny Carey of Tool, Liberty DeVitto of Billy Joel’s band, Nicko McBrain of Iron Maiden, Eric Carr of Kiss, Phil Rudd of AC/DC, Phil Collins, Mike Portnoy of Dream Theater, Pedro Andreu of Heroes del Silencio and others.
In his extensive survey of The Beatles’ recording sessions, Mark Lewisohn confirmed that Starr was both proficient and remarkably reliable and consistent. According to Lewisohn, there were fewer than a dozen occasions in The Beatles’ eight-year recording career where session ‘breakdowns’ were caused by Starr making a mistake, while the vast majority of takes were stopped owing to mistakes by the other three members.45 Starr is considered to have influenced various modern drumming techniques, such as the matched grip, placing the drums on high risers for visibility as part of the band, tuning the drums lower, and using muffling devices on tonal rings.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
This only proves that Ringo is actually OVERRATED by most drummers.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, the funniest part about this is that you’re saying mccartney was the least talented of the four. clearly joking, or crazy.
Harrison was my favorite Beatle, but even I can acknowledge that he was the 3rd most talented. (Ringo being the least of course.)
My feelings exactly.
I really love Harrison’s songs with the Beatles. Especially My Guitar Gently Weeps and Something.
McCartney is a close second for my favorite and I think the most talented. Not only as a song-writer, but I think he was the best singer of the group, by far. He has one of the best passionate screaming/singing voices I’ve ever heard.
Lennon I appreciate. But never have been as attached to his songs or singing.
Ringo? The luckiest man to ever live.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I despise McCartney. Can’t stand to listen to anything he’s done since the Beatles.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Holmgren’s expertise is offense, mangini’s is defense. I’m also think its not a huge stretch that holmgen lets mangini keep doing what he’s doing as far as building a power running game or sticking with the 3-4. maybe holmgren disagrees on how to build that power running game, but the core concept is still there. Holmgren is smart enough to know a 4-3 isn’t inherently superior to a 3-4, so its not outrageous to think he could keep it.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:20 AM EST up reply actions
Well a move was going to made after the debacle of the first 10 weeks. So to get a football man like Holmgren to run the team is pretty fortunate. He has had success in this league. He definitely has the best resume of any Browns hires since 1999, excluding Policy. This was a move that had to made. Stability or not.
I don’t hate Holmgren. I hate instability.
Matt Millen had a GM job from 2001-2008.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions
Stability doesn’t only mean keeping the same people in the same position. It means consistency of philosophy and it’s application to player acquisition and coaching.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Shocker.
You related to Mangini by chance?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
I’ve already explained why I think we’re in trouble come draft day. Disagree? Have at it.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
I wish I had that unreserved of a reaction! I’m more along the lines of, “Well, this should be interesting….”
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, if nothing else, it’ll give me something to bitch about.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
If you can’t be good, at least be interesting to watch fail!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, but...
What about the Rooney Rule? I know Lerner wanted Holmgren from the start, and to be honest, I did too. But ignoring the Rooney Rule has cost some teams before. As of June of this year, the RR went into effect for all senior football operations positions within the NFL. I know the Lions got dinged about $200k back in ‘03 (or ’04?), and it seems foolish to put the team in a position where we’ll have to pay an unnecessary fine just because Lerner couldn’t take an extra day or two to interview a minority candidate.
You’ll get yelled at for mentioning the Rooney Rule. I’d watch it.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
I know, I’m playing with fire over here. I guess my point really boils down to: Why is Lerner putting the team in a position where we’ll have to pay an easily avoidable (and not insubstantial) fine?
Also, Go Flashes!
I nor anyone else should have a problem with that.
My take: If Lerner wants to not adhere to the Rooney Rule and to pay a fine and it doesn’t hurt the Browns, let him pay the fine. He has plenty of money and I don’t think it will impact our ability to sign players, hire coaches, etc.
right, as long as it doesn’t affect the football team, i’m confident lerner can afford the fine.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
There is absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning the Rooney Rule; it’s part of the NFL.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
Just ruffling feathers.
And it’s actually not, as deemed by Rufio. – That’s a serious sentence.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
The issue wasn’t mentioning the Rooney Rule; it had to do with the political argument of its merit in the modern NFL.
I am pretty sure we complied with the Rooney rule. They don’t have to publicly announce every interview they give.
yeah i remember hearing a browns official had been in contact with the NFL just so they could be sure what the implications of the rule were for their situation.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
I’ll be honest, I hated the Mangini hire since day 1. And however unprecedented the futility of the first 10 games was, I can respect “the process” and its rewards the past two weeks (assuming they continue, which I think they will). I like the discipline he’s brought and it’s clear that everything he does is for a reason (which is refreshing). In essence, he might be a very solid football coach. His draft/FA acumen is average at best, which is just fine. If Mangini were to stay, he needs paired with a more powerful personnel guy. He needs a Colbert to his Tomlin/Cowher. If this happened, I think Mangini could succeed.
However, I agree with Golan (gasp!). This move is one of two things: two huge personalities pulling in different directions, or starting over more than any time other than when Savage was hired (b/c that team had literally zero players, whereas this team has quite a few cornerstones). If it’s the former, it will fail, and if it’s the latter, we’re once again dismissing stability and starting over (too soon?). Our only hope is that the latter is the case b/c Mike friggin Holmgren will end the trend.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Well said.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
So, as a Browns (and Mangini) fan, do you agree with me that the latter is the only possible positive outcome (taking ANOTHER huge step back, though it may be)? Or do you think they could actually co-exist?
I’d get a chuckle if you became the Mangini defender for a year after his termination, as I’ve been the Savage one.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I hope that they can co-exist, but don’t think that it’s going to happen. If Mangini isn’t gone this year, he almost certainly will be after next season, and in the meantime I think it’s highly likely that we waste the majority of those 11 picks trying to make it work.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 21, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
By all accounts Holmgren loves power tremendously, so the possibility of ceding anything for one moment is very doubtful to me. I think that’s what got him to take the job. Either Mangini learns to run a 4-3 and West Coast, or he’s toast. Either right away or a year from now. But hey, what’s another wasted year to this org?
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Fortunately Holmgren is not our coach.
By all accounts Holmgren loves power tremendously, so the possibility of ceding anything for one moment is very doubtful to me. I think that’s what got him to take the job. Either Mangini learns to run a 4-3 and West Coast, or he’s toast. Either right away or a year from now. But hey, what’s another wasted year to this org?
It will be Mangini’s responsibility to coach the team and to answer to Holmgren. If he wants his job he will have to keep his ego in check (not saying that his ego is a problem) and not the other way around. With the Kokinis situation this is probably a good thing and probably was a huge factor in Lerner seeking out Holmgren (someone who knows football much better than he does).
Now if Holmgren is going to start wanting to dictate what the coach does without having the Coach title, I fear we are even more screwed than we have been in the past. It would have to be really hard to get anyone here to become a figurehead coach if Holmgren is going to be the one dictating what that coach does.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
i think he needs a Colbert to his Stewart
by notthatnoise on Dec 21, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
His draft/FA acumen is average at best, which is just fine
I’d hold off on that statement, considering his great draft picks with the Jets.
He shouldn’t have gone early.
Bad bad idea.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
He needs to play with his hand in the dirt. That pick makes me question whoever pulled the trigger on him. Every OSU fan wondered how in the world he would play as an outside linebacker.
This.
Just because a DE is fast doesn’t mean he can play OLB.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:24 AM EST up reply actions
he really only had the one big year though, correct? or am i misremembering?
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions
He was second team All-Big Ten in ’06.
He really came into his own in ’07.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
ok, so decent DE, just a huge reach where they picked him.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
A decent one would have had at least 1 sack by now
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 9:13 PM EST up reply actions
Well put. While I hope the two men get along and work together, I’m more afraid that this situation represents a deathmatch of egos from which Holmgren will emerge victorious and alone, to then build a team as he sees fit, reset button pressed.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
If we do move to a WCO, I’d be all for hiring Jim Zorn as offensive coordinator and signing Jason Campbell. When the guy has protection he’s pretty darn good.
Yes, but his offensive line has quit. I don’t think anything that’s going on now is fair to judge him with. The entire team has pretty much given up.
I don’t know why, but I also like Campbell.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me but they guy has had something like 7 different offenses since high school.
If we go away from Quinn, I would love to see him in Cleveland in some sort of Pennington like role.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
They mentioned that last night I think it was 8 different coordinators in like 9 years.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
With that kind of turnover, how would anyone expect him to be any good?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t get the Zorn love. The Redskins offense went from putrid to average when he relinquished play calling duties.
Maybe that’s because being the head coach and play-caller at the same time was too much for one person to handle. That doesn’t mean he won’t make a good offensive coordinator.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 8:06 AM EST up reply actions
Right, we can’t say for certain. I don’t want to try it though, given his lack of success with the Skins.
Did you see that play he called right before half-time?
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
The offense was putrid last night and he isn’t calling plays. They’re just a terrible offense, in general. He knows the WCO and did Holmgren likes him. And he did well enough as OC to be hired as a head coach.
Zorn never was an OC. He was just a QB coach at Seattle
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
My question is does anyone really have faith that Holmgren is the one who can right the ship? Will he be GM or hire one? He is a respected coach, but it can be argued his GM/personnel talents are debateable. I hope he’s the right guy, but I am just not sure.
None of us are sure. We cannot see into the future after all. But at least the Browns have someone strong at the top for once.
Policy/Clark/Palmer/Davis were are figuring things out as they went. They had no clue how to run an expansion franchise and it showed.
Savage had no long-term vision. He was living draft-to-draft, almost by the seat of his pants. It was like handing the keys to a scouting director who just wanted to get as much talent each year as possibly, the future be damned.
Mangini has a vision but he’s just the head coach. There’s no stability up top.
Holmgren knows what it takes to run an organization and not just a team. That is where the biggest difference will be, I feel. Everything will be done for the good of the organization, not just the good of this year’s team.
Savage would be perfect for Dan Snyder.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
Al Davis would be perfect for Dan Snyder.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
But even though he has experience, (Seahawks?) that track record is average right? Its not like Parcells, in where ever Holmgren goes, he has success? He only ran the whole show once and had those duties stripped. Maybe he has learned from that, and we will see.
He did pretty well in GB as a head coach.
And he was stripped because he was asking for too much power. He has all the power he could ever want now.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 21, 2009 11:38 PM EST up reply actions
What if there was a legit problem with him having too much power?
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
I didn’t say there wasn’t. Because that is a legitimate problem.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
I wasn’t being sarcastic I was really wondering because I’m not familiar with the situation.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
…I didn’t think you were being sarcastic.
Now I’m confused.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 23, 2009 1:14 AM EST up reply actions
Oh nevermind then I thought you were feeling I was taking the piss and that there was a miscommunication of tone so I was apologizing.
No worries then.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
There aren’t many people in the NFL like Parcells. He doesn’t have to be Parcells to be a success.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
True
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 8:09 AM EST up reply actions
Nope. His track record is as good – and more STABLE than Parcells.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 21, 2009 11:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
He had all the power in Seattle and got stripped, cause he couldnt do it all, and I think his GM decisions were questionable. More stable than Parcells? I don’t know about that. He is a very very good coach. But wherever Parcells has gone there has been success. I guess I just wish he had more success as a GM, thats all.
This whole “Holmgren was stripped of his GM duties” talk is misleading.
He was stripped the off-season before the Super Bowl.
That Super Bowl Seahawks team was 90% Holmgren. Shaun Alexander, Darrell Jackson, Steve Hutchinson, Ken Lucas, Floyd Womack, Heath Evans, Orlando Huff, Jerramy Stevens, Maurice Morris, Rocky Bernard, Marcus Trufant, Ken Hamlin, Senneca Wallace, D.J Hackett, Josh Brown, Jordan Babineaux, Sean Locklear, Marquand Manuel, and Micheal Boulware were all his draft picks and played roles in his Super Bowl trip.
Seems like a decent haul. When you add in who who brought in through free agency and trades (Matt Hasselbeck, Bobby Engram and Grant Winstrom) that looks like Holmgren had his finger prints all over that SB team.
Yes he was stripped of his duties, but well after he had created a Super Bowl worthy team.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
Take a look at the last 10 years of bill parcells. Then compare it to holmgren’s last 10 years.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 22, 2009 3:26 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
True. I guess. I don’t know. The benevolent dictator thing just doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling, and I’m not convinced by Holmgren’s track record of expanded responsibility. We’ll see. What can you do but hope for the best?
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
last time they lost was in march against…the cavs!
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:30 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that was a big win after losing to the Mavs yesterday.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 21, 2009 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
I really wouldn’t be surprised to see shaq’s huse expiring contract shipped elsewhere.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions
I could see them moving Z for something, but they’re not going to get anyone really good unless they give up Hickson and I don’t see them doing that. Hopefully West can get his personal life figured out and keeps playing more minutes, which would really add production to our bench. That and Hickson continuing to improve would really help the Cavs depth and give them more scoring options.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions
Fummy Thing
It prolly doesn’t matter what Eric accomplishes over the last couple games – simply comes down to if Holmgren has “his guy” or not.
Holmgren is a good hire. I have a lot of confidence in his ability to build a roster and find a franchise quarterback as long as he doesn’t try to add too much to his plate and add coaching duties to his job description.
I am hopeful that Eric Mangini will find a way to coexist with Holmgren and that they can work to a common goal. We are saying how their coaching philosophies don’t mesh, but we have to remember that Mangini is a defensive coach, and Holmgren is an offensive guy.Mangini should be able to defer to someone like Holmgren who has a lot more credibility when it comes to offense, while also focusing on improving the defense. I don’t foresee a problem when it comes to agreeing on defense.
Bottom line though is that Holmgren is the guy now and we need to let him direct the future of the franchise and put our faith in him. Eric needs to focus on coaching, something I have confidence he will do since he doesn’t have a lot of other options.
Even keeled and well reasoned, RD. Fingers crossed!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 1:37 AM EST up reply actions
It would seem to suit his abilities. “Can Quinn find and hold the strike zone” seems to be the more pressing question.
Those more familiar with the WCO, is it pass focused?
I think we got a taste of what Mangini wants on Sun, a power running game, and given where we play that makes sense.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 8:11 AM EST up reply actions
In general, the West Coast involves pass catching backs and fullbacks and a whole lot of dink and dunk. It’s also boring to watch.
Though it can be tailored somewhat to suit the personnel.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
the WCO is more 3-step drop based. When Walsh first put it in, it totally messed with the way defenses played because it read pass patterns short-to-deep, instead of the normal deep-to-short. The QB would read a short crossing route, slant, hitch, etc. first, and then go to deeper routes if that wasn’t there.
Some teams like the Eagles use it to pass a ridiculous amount, but I wouldn’t say there is one singular West Coast Offense right now, but several offenses who base themselves around those principles. Favre runs it/ran it and loves to pass downfield, for instance. I think the Vikings were still running a “WCO” when they were feeding it to Peterson all game, and Seattle was running it when Alexander was running wild.
So what does a West Coast QB need to do?
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
Be accurate on short routes. Make very good reads on option routes. Be athletic enough to make every throw on bootlegs and designed roll outs.
I suggest you find some tape of the 49ers from about 85 through 05. Or the ESPN Classic version of the Packers/49ers playoff games of the late 90’s. Holmgren vs. Mariucci. It was the WCO vs. the WCO. Handful of future NFL coaches on each sideline and ESPN’s interviews go pretty in depth about the terminology and strategy of the WCO with the players and coaches.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Favre, McNabb, Young, Montana, Haselbeck are all guys who have put up bigtime numbers in “west coast offenses”, but each have different strengths. I would agree that you need at least some athleticism, and to be accurate.
The ESPN Classic replay of the 49ers/Packers game with “the Catch II” is awesome.
i want Bernie Kosar for HC or OC, who’s with me? or QBC and Jim Brown at RBC and lets just fill up our coaching staff with old Browns players, yeah
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 2:15 AM EST reply actions
I have calmed my wish down to only Kosar as QB coach. :P
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 8:11 AM EST up reply actions
HC or OC? Hell no.
If he wants to start as a QB coach and move up, by all means. Being a good quarterback doesn’t automatically make you a good coach.
well i was just having fun but if you’ve ever listened to Kosar talk about plays he seems to know his stuff… i didn’t say i wanted Brett Farve or Joe Montana… and one of the reasons he was kicked off the Browns was for drawing plays up in the dirt, that would usually work, but Modell and company didn’t like it. thats a fact i saw him say on a special highlighting his career
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
The Browns just hired a man who has turned two franchises into winners. The Packers had two winning seasons in the previous 20 before him. Now they are year in year out contenders (Favre helped). Then he went to Seattle, a team that had not had a winning season since ’91 and turned them into a Super Bowl contender. He is now the head man here in Cleveland? How can anyone not love this move?
I was never a fan of the Mangini hire. Why were the Browns the only team rushing to interview the guy after he completely mismanaged the end of the Jets previous season? Not to mention the whole, let’s hire the HC before the GM and let the HC choose his own boss thing. It just seemed ass backwards from the start.
I have never had confidence in him. He was a bad defensive coordinator (2005 his only season he lead the New England Patriots to the 26th rated defense. In 2004 they had the 9th rated defense and in 2006 the Pats had the 6th rated defense! By the way, Mangini’s Jets teams finished with the 20th, 18th and 16th rated defense. Rex Ryan (along with Rex Ryan and Jim Leonhard) went into NY and has turned that team into the number one defesive team in the NFL. Why again is this guy considered a defensive guru?)
In short, teams defense’s keep getting better as soon as Mangini leaves.
So he sucked as a DC, uneven at best as a HC. Why do we need to keep him around? Because it isn’t fair? Who cares? Chris Palmer beat the Steelers twice and was canned after two seasons. This is the NFL, as in not for long according to Jerry Glanville. You think Dolphin fans care if it was fair if Cameron got poopcanned after one season? Doubtful. If Mangini gets canned, it is his own fault for not being able to work with his own hand picked GM. Let’s be honest here, if Kokinis and Mangini got along, Holmgren wouldn’t be here. So forgive me if I don’t weep for Mangini if he is shown the door.
I was nodding my head through the first paragraph of this. Then it turned into the “Let’s debate the hiring of Mangini again!” hour. No offense, but I think I’ve read all this before. Probably all water under the bridge now anyway….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 22, 2009 2:55 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
That wasn’t my intention but it comes across that way.
I guess the much shorter version is this:
Mike Holmgren is calling the shots. If he fires Mangini, big deal, I don’t care. If he doesn’t, then Mangini better start making some big strides as a HC if he wants to keep that job for long.
Is it too early for a “In Holmgren we trust”?
Yeah, it is.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 4:47 AM EST up reply actions
That sentiment I can understand, even if I’m more pro-Mangini than you and hope events allow him another year under Holmgren to make good.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 2:52 AM EST up reply actions
Rec.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 8:12 AM EST up reply actions
I would argue it actually makes more sense to hire a coach before a GM, and also that the GM is not the coaches boss, that is a huge misconception pushed by the local media because apparently mangini slept with their mothers.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 9:35 AM EST up reply actions
It has nothing to do with the Cleveland media; most NFL front offices have a coach under a GM, and the GM is the one who hires and fires the coaches. This isn’t some “misconception” which the local media pushed because they hate Mangini; it has nothing to do with Mangini. Most organizations are set up that way, which is why it was so unusual to hire a coach before a GM and many people, not just the local media, questioned it.
I’m really getting tired of this spin that everything bad about Mangini is the media’s fault. Is he really that perfect?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 10:00 AM EST up reply actions
It’s not that Mangini is that perfect, it’s that the media has been that bad. Had they stuck to making the case that you hire a GM first, they’d be fine.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
What do you mean “stuck to making the case”? When have they said anything other than hiring a GM first is the best move?
The point is that saying “it’s a huge misconseption pushed by the local media” is just flat out wrong and shows the level to which some people will go to blame everything that’s wrong on the media. They’re not even criticizing Mangini; they’re criticizing Lerner and it has nothing to do with which coach was hired, yet the Mangini apologists will spin it so that it’s the media picking on poor Mangini. I’m getting tired of this.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was agreeing with you about the GM bit. To clarify, had the media stuck to making the case that you hire a GM before you hire a coach, they’d be fine. That’s not what happened though. The media moved immediately to attacking Mangini when they should have been after Lerner.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
But the attacked Mangini (rightly or wrongly) for things having nothing to do with the GM, so I don’t see how that’s relevant. Once Lerner makes the hires, what else is there to say? Are they supposed to second-guess him for the whole season, or move on to covering the events of the team?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
rec’d. You’re finally starting to look at things they way I have all season:)
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 22, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
HaHa. Take that Brad.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
Not really. You must be misunderstanding me.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
For the most part I’ve always stated that most people in this forum will spin things and change their opinion and justifications on what is going on with the team at the moment. Especially when it comes to Mangini and the decisions he have made.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 22, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
But that’s not always true — only a few people are doing that now. You argue this all the time, because you always want to spin things in a negative way. For example, the whole WR’s take a few years to develop issue that we argued about a couple months ago. That’s been a well-known thought for many years that I’ve heard from many different sources, yet you thought we only made it up to justify the shaky performance of our two rookie WR’s. That’s completely false.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree, especially since most people thought Robo would come in and contribute right from the start. And looking at all the rookie WR’s who are doing great this year, I would say I’m definitely right but there really is no point in going into this.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 22, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
ok, whether most teams are set up like that or not, i’d like to put forth that it should actually be the other way around. the coach should be able to find a guy who is going to know how to find players for his scheme, otherwise, you’re indirectly letting the GM decide what schemes you’re running, and that should be the coaches job.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, do I disagree.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
i’m genuinely curious as to why. what is the big benefit to having a GM before a coach? what makes a GM more qualified to pick a coach than a coach to pick a GM?
seriously, if i’m missing something and i’m way off base i have no problem admitting this is stupid, i just don’t see what that is.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
Part is that the GM is intuitively the boss of the head coach. Part is that it has almost always worked that way, and the only times I can think of where teams have tried your way, it has ended up in disaster.
There needs to be a visionary and a leader, and the GM sets the tone for the style of play. This is a very big picture thing. The GM’s role is to create this big picture. The coach needs to deal with the more small picture, day-to-day stuff. The tactical game plans, the team relationships, practices, playing time, etc. Coaches that spend too much time on the bigger picture stuff often fail.
The huge caveat to all this is that every team structures their organization different and much of this discussion comes down to semantics. Now with the increased prevalence of the President title, there is another layer of management. And I think a good one. (Unless the owner is a football guy and involved, i.e. Jerry Jones).
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
ok this makes sense to me. I still don’t see a reason why it can’t work the way we did it, and i would also caution against the “this is the way its always been” argument, but overall this sounds good, and i will gladly shut up about it now.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
I would say it can’t work the way we did it because it seems the coach picked GM did very little. If the GM is positioned to be the coach’s boss then he needs to be his boss.
Granted I would love to go out and hire my boss, but we would probably have a pretty crappy organization.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
Now if you had said we hire him as one of the three FO stooges, I would have said yes.
But, ahem, this actuality non reality, um…NO.
Ok, change of heart, change of mind. Approved in a limited role. He´s part of the FO crew.
Do your thing Teddy Bare.
by mooncamping on Dec 22, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Mike Holmgren was announced as the new President of the Cleveland Browns. I think it’s a great move for the Browns. He adds a lot of great football knowledge at the top of their organization. So long as he just stays focused on his role, and lets everyone else in the organization (after he cleans house) do their job.
^This is what a writer for Acme Packing Company had to say.
Out of our 11 losses, all but 2 are contending to be playoff teams.
Minnesota
Broncos
Ravens
Bengals
Steelers
Green Bay
Ravens
Bengals
Chargers
Obviously the Chicago and Detroit losses sucked, but it seems like there’s an overreaction to our record now and where we projected ourselves before the season started. Going into the season I thought we would split with the Bengals, beat Denver, the Bills, the Lions, Kansas City and Oakland and have a chance against the Jags. If we can end up with 5 this year I won’t be all that disappointed because I really thought Denver was going to completely suck in that I had no faith in Orton.
This year to me is the opposite of 2007 and just as it was faulty to get too excited over that season I don’t think we should overreact to this year, especially with the progress we have shown towards the end of the year, and the way that the team has battled through injuries and the fact that we were 1-11.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
So we are 1-9 against playoff contending teams. That’s pretty bad. We are also 2-2 against crappy, laughingstock teams. That’s pretty bad too.
My conclusion? We are a bad, crappy, laughingstock team.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 23, 2009 12:05 AM EST up reply actions
And we’re starting DA this week!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 2:54 AM EST up reply actions
I love how people make excuses that most of our losses were to playoff contending teams so that makes us not as bad. This is the NFL, where about 2/3 of teams are playoff contending teams. Honestly, I think there are only 4 teams in the AFC who are NOT in the playoff hunt right now, and there’s only two games left! If you’re going to be good you have to be those teams once in a while. It’s not like the only teams we lost to were the Colts, Saints, and Vikings — that would be excusable. We lost to some average teams, and we lost by a lot (see: Chicago). We’re a bad team.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 8:33 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think anyone’s arguing we aren’t a bad team, just that we aren’t as bad as some people may think.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions
naw our bottom ranked offense and defense shows we’re as bad as people think
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 23, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
No we are definitely a bad team. I was just saying that this year is the exact opposite of 2007 and that we shouldn’t rush to judge based off of wins and losses.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
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.
