Instant Recap: McCoy's Rough Day Costs Cleveland
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 26, 2010 3:54 PM EST
in General News
Email
PrintIt was a rough day for Cleveland Browns quarterback Colt McCoy, who struggled throwing the ball more today than he did at any other point this season. He threw three interceptions, and each time he threw one, it came when the Browns were driving and McCoy was airing the ball out down the field. The first time, McCoy's throw was intercepted by the cornerback in man coverage. The second and third time, safety Ed Reed floated over from the safety position to prevent the big play.
In the second quarter with Cleveland losing 10-7, the Browns faced a 3rd-and-5 from midfield. McCoy's pass down the sideline to Mohamed Massaquoi was intercepted and run back for 20 yards, eventually leading to a Ravens field goal.
In the fourth quarter, with Cleveland losing 20-10 and facing a 2nd-and-10 from the 27, McCoy threw to the end zone again and was intercepted by Reed. If the Browns didn't make the mistake on that drive and just kicked a field goal, with a defensive stop they still could have been in position to drive for another score before the end of the game.
It wasn't just the interceptions that plagued McCoy, particularly in the second half. His throws weren't as accurate as they've been the past couple of weeks, something we couldn't afford with Peyton Hillis being on the Ravens' radar all game long. It seemed like the plays were there to be made, but McCoy wasn't able to rise the occasion. I'm disappointed, perhaps more so because it increases the odds that we'll have to deal with more and more head coaching rumors over the next couple of weeks.
685 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The rumors will continue because this team is playing worse week after week.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 3:56 PM EST reply actions
I like Eric – but he is gone. What can Holmgren say? I am happy with 5-11 or 6-10?
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
It’s not the record… it’s the process that is breaking down. The defense not being able to stop the run, our rushing offense not working, etc. If this was the 3-7 team that lost to the Jets, Mangini would look like a stud. This is not a team turning the corner, it’s a team giving up.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
3-5 team that lost to the Jets.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah – the state of the Browns is sad. What is really tough is both Baltimore and Steelers have their chit so tight. They just plug and play every year – football is an “organizational game” and we are eons behind.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
Heck, the Lions are looking like the team we were a month ago. They just beat Miami away in impressive fashion.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
why is the lions’ 7-point victory over miami substantially more impressive than the browns’ 3-pointer?
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 28, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
the Ravens and Steelers are light years ahead of the Browns in personnel. Your argument is about organizational strength and then you blame the head coach. We are 1 year into what looks like a strong GM.
I do not blame Mangini – just stating that he is very, very likely gone. When he goes, a new coach will realize we have no speed on offense, no speed on defense, blow it up and wash, rinse, repeat. The Steelers are ahead of us because of their ability to draft. Look at the 2009 draft. We draft 2 WRs in the second round, and the Steelers draft Mike Wallace later on.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
New GM who appears to have a very solid first draft under his belt. This should be the main reason for optimism. It is all about drafting, and we need to have a 2010 draft consistently to get better. Changing the coach won’t be the solution.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 27, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
blow it up and wash, rinse, repeat.
the fact that this has been the Browns MO since 1999 is the biggest reason we are where we are. Keep some stability and consistency at the HC position and you’ll see positive change. Mangin has shown enough to be the guy that gets some time to build.
Front office instability — which led to (or resulted from) bad drafting — is the main reason we’ve been bad for the last 10 years. We have a strong front office in place now, and I’m confident they will make the right choice on the head coach. If they have confidence in Mangini then they should bring him back, but if they can find someone better out there (or Holmgren himself wants to coach again) then I have no problem bringing someone else in. I don’t think that will set us back at all; it will only help us move forward with better leadership.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
This is a point that keeps getting over looked.
No one is clamoring for Heckert to be fired, or to bring in a HC that will want roster control. As long as Heckert is the one signing and drafting, I have 100% confidence in our front office.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 27, 2010 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
As I’ve said before, if Holmgren moves in as the coach I will lose a ton of respect for the guy.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
Why?
I am not one of those who is calling for Mangini’s head. I’ve stated recently that I’d like to see him come back next year.
But why would you ‘lose respect’ for Holmgren? I have enough respect for Holmgren at this point to trust his decisions, be it a coaching change, or stepping into the role himself.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
Why? If he decides that we wants to coach again then that’s certainly his right. And Lerner offered him the coaching job when he hired him but Holmgren didn’t want to take it, so I’m sure that Lerner told him he could have the job whenever he wanted it. Maybe after a couple of years away from the sidelines he decided that he’s ready to give it another shot. I’m not sure why you would lose respect for him over that.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
maybe because he’s stated numerous times that he is going to honor the commitment he made to be the top executive. He’s stated he was going to let his coaches coach. Whether this is true or not, if he steps in as coach it would certainly look like he didn’t give Mangini a fair shake because he wanted to coach. It would look like he decided to fire Mangini not purely for performance reasons but because he, himself wanted to coach again.
The first point is the most important though, if he becomes the coach he’s dishonest and a liar. I don’t respect liars.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly right.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 28, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
People change their mind all the time. That doesn’t make them liars.
He gave Mangini a fair chance. He didn’t fire him after last year when most people thought he would. If we lose to the Steelers, which we probably will, we’ll be 5-11 with the same record as last year. Sure, we certainly looked more competative this year than last season but much of that was because of the talent brought in by the front office. There are plenty of reasons to justify firing Mangini, regardless of whether or not he comes back to coach. If he decides he wants to coach again because he thinks he’s the best man for the job then that is certainly his right, and I’d have no problem with that decision. He’s certainly proven more as a head coach than Mangini has.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I feel the same way as you BB. I wouldn’t lose any respect for him. He allowed Mangini to make his own destiny and didn’t interfere with the coaching of the team all season. I, personally, do not think Mangini will be our coach next year. I think this year was his chance to show Holmgren that his philosophy of conservative, tough, defensive style play can win you games. However, he didn’t get the wins to show it. I think there is too much disparity for Mike on coaching philosophy between the two that will inevitably outweigh any progress Eric has shown this year. Bottom line is wins and they aren’t there to back Mangini up.
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
I’m with NTN here.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 28, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
I think this turn of events would look bad, even if Holmgren’s motives were pure and he’s just ‘changed his mind’. What I like about it even less though is that it would move Holmgren out of his current role and jeopardize the stability having him there can provide the organization. I feel we need that stability, especially if we’re changing the OC \ DC \ HC. Fire Mangini, move Holmgren, change coordinators and we’re edging closer to “Blow it all up!” territory than I prefer.
Also, I’m dubious about Coach Holmgren reverting to just that and not instead being Czar Holmgren with another hat added on. I don’t like the idea of a dictatorship, even with Holmgren as the benevolent dictator.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t like the idea of a dictatorship, even with Holmgren as the benevolent dictator.
excellent Hitler segue.
Maybe it’s the mustaches.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 29, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Essentially, I am too. I think Holmgren should stick to what he said and run the show from on high. However, i wouldn’t hate him and be negative toward him if he does decide to coach.
I’d only be negative toward him if he thinks he can be Director of Football Ops/Head Coach. That would be a grease fire.
losing respect is a little strong … For me, I’d simply rather not have the prez and coach be the same guy.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 28, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
maybe I’m parsing language too much here, but to expect little-to-no setback or hiccup in the team’s progress w/ a coaching change is pretty naive. I’m aware of the recent examples, but those would have to be exceptions that prove the rule.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 28, 2010 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
Disagree – It is not a team giving up, but merely a team without the depth to sustain a 16 game season. The run defense was fine with Fugita. The rushing offense not working because it was 1 dimensional and the passing game is so weak.
This actually sounds like a competent and feasible argument. Are you sure you’re from around here?
Stuckey watch: 31/30. Haha! I AM SET YOU UP THE BOMB!!!!
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 28, 2010 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Not a good day for Colt today – although the WR play really was poor. MoMass ran a zero pattern, and what pisses me off the most is that he did not compete for the ball on the first pick. Then he coughs up the ball like a complete woos. The drops by Stuck and whoever Demetrius Williams is just deserve a bencing.I hate Robo – but I have to say this was his best game – great caqtch on the TD, the PI call was phantom, and what made me the happiest was he actually made a nice block. Still think he is a complete spare as a WR. AJ Green in the first round makes my wish list.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
agreed mostly. Still do not see Robo as an even average WR in the pros.
by kingcrimson2 on Dec 26, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
we NEED AJ Green or J Jones bad.
Massaqua, for at least the 3rd time this year, didn’t even know that pass was on its way until the body language of the DB told him to look. It has happened on the same pattern every time. Not a great throw at all, but one of the mentioned recievers in my opinion goes up and gets that ball.
Every day may not be good, but there's something good in every day.
Thanks, fixed. The Jets/Bears game came on right after that and was on my mind!
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 26, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
I remember last year everyone was saying all will be forgiven if we beat the Steelers. From a pride point of view, will beating the Steelers next week save your pride? or is the Browns flag on your lawn flying at half mast?
Holmgren for President, of the World
I’m a proud Cleveland fan and I’m becoming more passionate about this team as the years go by. Beating the Steelers would be nice, but it’s not season changing. The time to save the season has come and gone. The future is up in the air.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
The only things beating the Steelers will accomplish is giving Mangini a nice send off and it could cost the Steelers a division crown. The game is so big for the Steelers, and I totally agree with Buenos Aires Dog that the wheels have come off – I think it will be in the 34-10 range at best.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
beat the steelers next week yes helps everything, but it has to be a solid victory with good Offense and Defense, not a victory with trick plays and special teams….we need signs that this team is moving forward, which have been absent in recent weeks.
Every day may not be good, but there's something good in every day.
This is ridiculous. We aren’t at a stage as a team where we can be prescribing acceptable victory execution … A win of any kind against the second best team in the conference would be awesome.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 28, 2010 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
The Steelers game is much less about us as fans this time around as it is about the team and the coach. while I’ve been arguing for keeping Mangini, and truly believe we should, how he prepares the team for this game will make a huge statement. If he’s the coach to lead this team going forward, I think he’ll tell the players “guys, we’re out of the playoffs. we’re undermanned. we’re huge underdogs. but this is pittsburgh and you have a chance to take the division from them. go out and show everyone who the Cleveland Browns are, and will be next year.”
win or lose, how we play this game will be a huge statement for Mangini, the team, and the fortunes of next season.
….how he prepares the team for this game will make a huge statement.
I don’t know, DN. I mean, I kind of felt that way about our last four games this year. Now that we’ve lost three of those, and to my eyes looked pretty lackadaisical doing it at least twice, I’m struggling to psyche myself up for the Steelers game. I have a hard time seeing it as meaning anything much except whether we’ll end 5-11 or 6-10 this year. And I hate the Steelers.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 29, 2010 8:49 AM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t blame this loss on McCoy. The expectations of him as a rookie are ridiculous. We ended the first half in a clusterfuck, just like last week, but at least we got 3 points this time. Our play calling is so predictable that I can sit on my couch half drunk and know what is coming every time they line up. I hate Texas, as far as I’m concerned I wish they would secede from the union, but Colt is a winner and I hope Holmgren gives him some players and coaches that will help him.
by HenryDawg on Dec 26, 2010 4:07 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Mangomi should be fired tomorrow for mianaging the clock. Why wait a week for the inevitable?
Get an early start on the coaching search.
by palcal on Dec 26, 2010 4:12 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
looking at our projected draft positions/rounds i hope we dont go for another 2 mediocre WR’s for Colt. But its looking the AJ Green will be off the board before our pick. I know we need to get a supporting cast for Colt but i would hate to see another couple picks go to receivers who are not thought of as day one playmakers. Anyone know any big play free agents coming up in the offseason?(besides T.O)
Holmgren for President, of the World
Best player available. We have needs everywhere. The pass rush today was glaringly bad, for instance. You can’t blame that on injuries.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
Your right, but also there were times where we only sent 2 pass rushers..
Holmgren for President, of the World
They couldn’t wrap up the QB. I must have seen 3/4 plays where they should have had the sack (had the lineman beat) but failed to tackle.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
This has been one of our biggest defensive weaknesses all year. Only Shaun Rogers seems to be able to finish sacks. Remembering Sanchez duck out of 5 of our sacks still makes me sick.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Dec 26, 2010 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed—definitely best player available. A speed rusher on the outside or a RT and look for a WR in free agency and/or in later rounds if need be.
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Dec 26, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
My problem with adding a WR in later rounds is that we straight up need a STUD on the outside there…its just tough to find guys like that later in the draft
Holmgren for President, of the World
Agree with BPA – but I think there is a good shot that AJ Green will be there. There are 3 QBs first round worthy in Luck, Newton, and Mallet – and that DB Peterson who is an absolute stud in the Eric Berry mold.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
I’d rather have Colt than any QB in the draft not named Luck
"There's nothing that cleanses the soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." Woody Hayes.
Do you think there is any chance that the Browns are bagging a bit to move up in the draft? They definitely pulled Hillis before they needed (they had a slight injury they could use as an excuse) and I saw a lot of names in the middle of the game that I haven’t seen all year.
Brownsyup
Vincent Jackson if the Bolts don’t tag him.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
They’re going to tag him out of pure spite. The Chargers are a joke.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
wait…so a QB has a rating under 30 and 3 picks and you blame the coach for the offense?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Yes – why should the OC not bare some responsibilty. How about the receivers should they not get some of the blame? But certainly the O-line was perfect today?
. How about the receivers should they not get some of the blame?
they weren’t throwing the ball. Plus, they seemed to get open better today than they have in many of the previous games.
the O-line was perfect today?
the O-Line wasn’t perfect, but they also had a better game than the last couple. I also saw more mixing it up on offense than we have seen for a lot of the season. the problem was that the QB couldn’t execute for 4 quarters.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
The offense was opened up a little more. That is what many have wanted to see. The end result of that may be turnovers. I was not as disappointed with Colts throws as I was with receivers not fighting for the ball enough. I found Daboll’s reactions on the sideline comical. I guess what I’m trying to say is throwing the QB under the bus is one thing, but he should not be alone. Team game
yep. it wasn’t all him, but it was a good deal him.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Exactly, nobody is getting thrown under the bus. McCoy is still a rookie. He is going to have rookie games. It probably won’t be the last one either. The most important thing is whether or not he will learn from it and correct those mistakes.
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
I was at this game on the 35 yard line. Yes John St. Clair sucks but those throws were on Colt today.
McCoy has been bailed out from having throws picked a few times in past games. Today he paid.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 27, 2010 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
I’d have to agree, I was at the game too. What surprised me is that I saw a lot of the time our receivers being open but not thrown to, especially Robo. The drops hurt as a lot, but not nearly as much as McCoy’s deep balls. They seemed to arch dangerously high and each time I thought “Oh no here comes a pick”. Sadly I missed Ed Reed catching on fire.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 27, 2010 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Well said. Being there in person gives you a much better sense of what’s going on down field. I recall one play where either MoMass or Robo had his man beat on a route into the corner of the end zone but McCoy overthrew him. That was a bummer.
But, McCoy’s a rookie, it was cold, windy, we couldn’t run the ball and it was the Ravens D. A game like this was bound to happen. I’m still optimistic about Colt moving forward.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 27, 2010 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
He should be expected not to make horrible throws like he did. Daboll’s playcalling was predictable again in spots, but Colt made some awful throws, he doesn’t get a pass on that and I don’t think he would want one.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
His longballs have too much air underneath them.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 26, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
I actually thought he did better with that this week, but they were still short.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
His lack of arm strength certainly showed in the windy conditions today. He needs to put more zip on those long passes to keep the defenders from having time to intercept them.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2010 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
Not so much “correct” as “improve” upon. A QB’s arm should, in theory, get a little stronger once he’s in the NFL. Won’t get a Jamarcus Russell arm in one offseason, but he should be able to get it there a little faster next season.
Stuckey watch: 31/30. Haha! I AM SET YOU UP THE BOMB!!!!
by BrownDawg1409 on Dec 28, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
And some of those are supposed to be intermediate balls on ropes, not deep balls. I am thinking specifically of the one Reed intercepted in the endzone and then ran back to the 30. That was supposed to be a glance route if I saw it correctly the first time.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
McCoy was saying he was the “hot” man and he was trying to hit Mo square in the face, but it slipped through his hands into Reed.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 26, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
Can I read/listen to this somewhere?
It’s odd to have your hot route run that deep. It looked like it was way too high/deep of a trajectory but still 10+ yards for a hot route is deep.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I think McCoy meant he himself was the “hot” man, I could have obviously heard it wrong. He went over the whole play in his presser. His hold of the offense is astounding. It’s cool to hear him coherently speak the X’s and O’s.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 26, 2010 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
D Brees had lots of picks against browns….a veteran…..SB winner…..no this is not the end of McCoy, he just needs a big time reciever….look at cleveland.com and there are Kosar’s stats his first season…..McCoy is better statistcally at this point.
Every day may not be good, but there's something good in every day.
fair enough, but colt’s got a little work to do before he’s crowned the next bernie kosar. I really like colt mccoy; I friggin love bernie kosar.
absolutely….and I have no idea on what mccoy will become, I just don’t want to give up on him yet. Lets get someone for him to throw to….he’s done pretty well with #3s at WR.
Every day may not be good, but there's something good in every day.
I don’t think anyone wants to give up on McCoy so you don’t have to worry about that.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 9:44 AM EST up reply actions
Not me, that’s for sure!
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
At least the last 2 games have been short so I can get an early start on lunch.
by palcal on Dec 26, 2010 4:08 PM EST via mobile reply actions
If you could keep anything down while watching these games, that is.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 26, 2010 9:15 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Once Colt was forced into action, I knew that this kind of game would occur at some point in his rookie season so the three picks don’t really concern me nearly as much as the lack of arm strength that he showed on those errant deep passes.
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Dec 26, 2010 4:16 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
His arm strength was a liability today, but I think he will develop arm strength and learn to use his hips more as he becomes more comfortable in the pocket. Overall, he still does a great job of leading the offense and seems to remain poised and confident at all times. At this point in his career I think that’s more telling of his potential.
In his defense, that 40 yard pass to Robiskie should’ve stood.
His arm strength doesn’t concern me too much at this point. He can improve and develop it. He’s great on the intermediate throws too.
yeah, that horsesh-t offensive pass interference should not have been called. Granted, Robiskie did make contact with his arm but not enough to influence the play, in my humble opinion . . .
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Dec 26, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
That was a shame.
But, bottom line Colt had a rookie day today and those 3 picks pretty much lost it for us.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I’m not denying that Colt was a “goat” today. But my point is is that it was a rookie facing the Ravens, and a game like that was bound to happen sometime.
I agree with all of this. I am not at all disappointed with colt. He had an awful day, but he is still a rookie and his overall play (82 QB rating, close to a 1/1 TD/INT ratio) is promising.
That being said, I blame this loss on poor execution, not the playcalling. this team looks worn out at times, but I thought it wasn’t a bad game plan
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I see something to your point but I was watching this game with my son-in-law and I called about 90% of the running plays as runs before they happened. For some reason the runs seemed very, very predictable in terms of alignment and players in the game. Also, the players didn’t seem all that prepared with certain plays… a lot of turning the wrong way and guys bumping into each other in the backfield. Execution as a problem is true to a certain extent here but since we didn’t see that kind of thing earlier in the year I have to assume they put some new twists into existing plays or new plays into the book. Preparation goes mostly on the coaches to me and it looked poor. The game looked a lot sloppier for sure… more like the first two games of a season.
I will grant that this isn’t all or maybe even mostly coaching. I think a lot of players have packed it in for the year. What happened to Rogers? He was definitely a factor a few games ago but now has disappeared. I think some fan/media criticism might have stung Cribbs also as he seemed to have more spark after some of the comments I saw about him last week. Coaches are supposed to motivate but I expect professional players to need less of that kind of thing.
Brownsyup
I think a lot of players have packed it in for the year.
This may be a factor. even with those mistakes, this team had a shot at winning if the guys on the field executed the gameplan.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I definitely agree that the whole McCoy arm strength issue is… well, pretty much a non-issue.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
I know you are a Colt apologist, but I don’t know how you can say that after today. It certainly hurt him on some passes in today’s game.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2010 11:10 PM EST up reply actions
Colt threw a number of bad passes Sunday. The 20 yard pass at the end of the 1st half that sailed over Robiskie’s head in the end zone by about 8 feet was bad. He just doesn’t miss those throws. He was not himself Sunday. I don’t know if it was the cold, or something else.
None of this has anything to do with his arm strength IMHO.
I’ve said it before. He does not have a cannon. His arm strength will improve over time as it does for many NFL QBs, but the bottom line is his arm strength is good. He can’t fire a 80 yard bullet like a couple of QBs out there, but my point has always been, and this has been echoed by the coaches and many others, that the arm strength “issue” is way overblown.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions
About the Robiskie throw… I thought it looked like Colt was throwing that one away. At the time he threw it Robiskie hadn’t released to the corner yet. That looked more like mis-communication to me and I thought Colt was seeing all his receivers as covered at the time he let that one go.
Brownsyup
I don’t know – I’m going to watch the game again, but I remember that play and I’m pretty sure that was just badly overthrown. Robiskie would easily have run under that pass – normally that throw would be on the money with Colt leading the receiver to the ball. Robiskie was wide open.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
I’m interested in what you think… try to see where Robiskie was when the ball is thrown. I thought he was trending towards Colt and then suddenly reversed to the corner about when the ball left Colts fingers.
Brownsyup
I just watched that play again. Robiskie was running up the right sideline and was wide open in the end zone. It was about a 20 yard throw and it sailed about 6 feet over Robiskie’s head. Should have been an easy TD.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
That throw was what made me wonder what is going on with McCoy.
He almost always puts that throw on the money.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
Im with Brownsyup – the ball was already in the air before Robiskie got open. It was not an overthrow.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
I just watched it again. The ball sailed 6 to 8 feet over Robiskie’s head and out of the end zone when Robiskie was wide open in the end zone.
How is that not an overthrown ball?
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
You are missing something, because the ball was thrown before he broke free from the DB. Was he open when the ball went over him? Yup, but it was thrown well before.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Call it what you want. Bottom line is the ball was not catchable. It sailed far over Robiskie’s head way over the right sideline and out of the end zone.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
It was uncatchable because there was no one open and he had to get rid of it so we had time to get atleast a FG out of the drive.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
I just watched the play three times in a row. If McCoy puts the ball in the corner of the end zone its a TD, but he overthrew it. We can agree to disagree, but I think if you asked Colt I believe he’d tell you it was just a bad throw.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
(overthrew it and threw it off target to the right)
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
Just watched it one more time to make sure I’m not seeing things.
McCoy watched Robiskie the whole way. He had him for a touchdown, wide open. He threw for the TD and threw a bad pass far overthrown and out of bounds over the right sideline.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
Seriously, no one is debating he threw it away. But at the time it was his only option. Robo was NOT OPEN when the ball was released. YES it went over his head but again it was thrown before then.
I guess we could expect Colt to be a mind reader and know that Robo was finally going to start trying to get open after the play broke down and the coverage was tight but I think you would agree thats asking jussssst a bit much.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
(see my above post)
The throw was a bad pass. I have just watched it four times in a row. He was tracking Robiskie all the way. He could see him beating his coverage into the end zone and threw the ball for Robiskie to catch but the throw was way off.
Colt was off yesterday. It was a bad day for him.
He’ll come back from it.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
In case you aren’t aware, I’m probably the biggest McCoy supporter around here (to the point of possibly being annoying to some).
After watching that play in slow motion five times in the last 20 minutes, I’d like to say he intentionally overthrew it. But I stand by everything I’ve said above. It is quite clear the ball was badly thrown.
It doesn’t bother me though. I think McCoy is going to be a great NFL QB. He had a bad day yesterday, which is to be expected of any rookie QB.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
it seems we are watching the same play and seeing different things then. (god I love having a good debate with someone who actually watches the games)
I think McCoy is going to be solid. When we drafted him I was worried he would be a “Dilfer” type QB. Guy who can ride a great defense and solid running game to some wins as long as he isnt asked to win games.
But honestly I could see him being more like a Matt Hasselbeck, solid QB that doesnt blow you away but is consistent as all hell.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Id be ok with a 3 time Pro Bowler who has completed over 60% of his career passes and has 50 more Tds then INTS.
Has he struggled recently? Yup, but he has been hurt and has verrrry little talent around him. For his career though he has been pretty solid.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Sure he’s solid, no doubt, but I am tired of striving to be OK – let’s start building teams we think can compete for SBs (I know he took them to a SB which the refs partially gave to the steelers). I think Colt has a higher ceiling
I think Colt has a higher ceiling
Agreed.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
I dont think he will ever be a Brady/Manning/Brees type QB.
After that what QB has been more consistent then Hasselbeck?
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
Brees? Call me a dreamer, but I think he could be another Drew Brees.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
not in Cleveland he wouldnt. Brees has excelled getting to play 10 of his games per year in domes and the other 2 divisional games in Tampa and Carolina (good weather 90% of the time). In our division a large majority of the games will be played with high winds, cold temps, or rain.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Well – couple of samples… playing in December last year at Washington he put up 420 yards passing with 2 TDs and this year 313 yards in December at Cincinnati. I don’t think Brees can be classified as a ‘fair weather’ QB.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
I can definitely see him being Brees-esque. Probably not Brady, just because he’s not as big and strong, but he can make plays with his feet. Rothlisberger (just threw up a little) has been better and so has Rivers, and Matt Ryan
Matt Ryan has had 1 year (this one) that I would put above Hasselbecks career. Thats it.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
THIS. I know he is a rookie so I will give him a break. However, in the NFL you often have to throw your guy open. This isn’t as necessary in college, but is in the pros. Thats a situation where he needs to throw Robi open by placing it where you said. Maybe he threw it away and if that is the case, that is a mistake in decision making.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
everyone make a note – on 12/27/10 at 8:47am, BOAB criticized colt mccoy.
joking, of course, but it is unfathomable.
I’m making progress…
Thanks for noticing. Don’t I get a rec? ;)
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
We’ve made it green for you!
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2010 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
I noticed – looks great, thanks!
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 28, 2010 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
it was an overthrow…..it is called a timing pattern…..good QBs throw the ball before the guy is open…they know the route he is running and know where he will be…..many times if you wait for the reciever to actually be open, it is already too late. lots of passes are thrown before the receiver makes his cut, such as on long outs, etc. if you throw it after his cut, look for a pick six. It is actually a common thing in the NFL and college and some good HS QBs can do it.
Every day may not be good, but there's something good in every day.
This was a called play and I am breaking it down right now for the front page.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’d like to see you break down the whole series at the end of the half (starting at about the two minute mark). Am I wrong, or was the clock management just appalling in that series? How can it be justified that we’re at mid-field with two minutes left in the half, and we don’t call our first time out until the clock is down to 17 seconds (and we’re sitting inside the 15 yard line)?
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
I thought the clock management was poor and the coaching staff was playing too much “not to lose”.
Mangini said they didn’t want to give Baltimore time to score after we scored—which is smart. The problem was we overcompensated for this and didn’t leave ourselves enough time to take shots at the endzone.
We could have used our full allotment of downs, used our timeouts better, and left them with 15 seconds and been fine. We didn’t want to leave them 20 minutes to drive but 15-30 seconds would have been fine.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
this is what it looked like to me as well.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
His arm strength is not at all good. I would say its average at best. It still generally doesn’t hinder him (and I do agree with you though that the issue is overblown)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Read my posts above.
He threw bad passes several times today. The ‘floaters’ were bad passes.
Little to do with arm strength.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
no, that has a lot to do with arm strength.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
We disagree.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
The most important point about his arm strength is that Holmgren cites it as something he’ll have to overcome.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Right, and he can develop his arm strength, at this point his best asset is his brain, which I think is the most important thing a QB can have.
His brain and his accuracy—both highly underrated. There are technique things Colt can improve on to put more on his throws—especially stepping in to them. He can probably gain a little more raw strength/power too but not much.
I don’t think arm strength will doom him, but he’s going to have to succeed without being a beast.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Like Drew Brees for example.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Also, I’m not sure how much he uses his hips, but “strong armed” QBs use more hips in their throwing motion.
Not all of them. You’ll see Cutler and Vick get away with throws no one should make because they can fire a ball in to a receiver off of their back foot or while falling.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Like Drew Brees for example.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
I was just looking at the game and looking at that throw to Robiskie (with 6:40 left in the 3rd quarter).
It was a 40 yard low trajectory missile with plenty of zip right on target to Robiskie.
Bottom line, I just don’t see the whole ‘arm strength issue’ as a problem for McCoy long term.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
See, I don’t see that throw as having all that much “zip”. It’s lofted, it’s a little floaty, he’s allowing Robi to go up and make a play. It’s a good throw, and it shouldn’t have been a pass interference call.
But from where I am sitting, that isn’t a throw that makes me say “alright, there should be no concern about his arm at all.” Look at the way his body is leaning when he releases the ball; he isn’t stepping forward and pushing off the ground, up through his body, and use that mass to drive the ball forward. He’s leaning slightly back, trying not to take the hit that is coming, which means he has more arm than we see in that play. I’d like to see him really get his footwork and body in position to allow him to put more on the ball at times.
When he has problems with balls that are thrown too soft, this is often the problem. We saw it in his first INT in the preseason, we just saw it in this game. He can focus on that in the offseason and have an effectively bigger arm.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
He can focus on that in the offseason and have an effectively bigger arm
Agreed.
I know McCoy is not a “cannon arm” QB at this point, I just think its getting blown out of proportion, and there are a number of folks who seem overly concerned about it.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 8:30 AM EST up reply actions
It is a big concern. If you look at the successful QBs in our division they are all big and have big arms (so do other successful QBs who play in the NE part of the country(. That doesn’t mean Colt can’t be effective, but because of the winter conditions we play in, arm strength could be a major problem.
It is a big concern
Whatever. We disagree.
Frankly, its ridiculous – he’s a rookie with 6 games under his belt.
You can be “very concerned” about it if you wish. It is not a “big concern” to most at this point.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 9:05 AM EST up reply actions
Did you ever read the pre draft scouting reports that compared Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf? Manning was the more polished QB but there were questions about his arm strength. Leaf was considered the more physically dominant QB but lacked accuracy/timing.
You can build up arm strength, you cant always fix accuracy issues.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions
I’d just add two words:
Drew Brees
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 9:11 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, we all know that McCoy is short and lacks elite arm strength just like Drew Brees. We’ve heard it a few dozen times from you already so you don’t need to keep repeating it.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
I have no problem bringing it up again when the context is appropriate.
Drew Brees.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
Drew plays mostly in domes and in the south. Of course we know he can throw in the cold form his time at Purdue.
Brees can throw and win on the road, anywhere.
Surely I don’t need to go back through his past road game stats.
To label Drew Brees as a fair weather QB would be quite a stretch.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
Drew plays mostly in domes and in the south
Then what is the point of this statement?
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:39 AM EST up reply actions
Of course we know he can throw in the cold form his time at Purdue.
Then what is the point of this statement? Jeez, what grade are you in?
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 28, 2010 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
I apologize for the ‘grade are you in’ post earlier.
I was defending Emily against what I thought was an unnecessary comment but should used a better choice of words.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
Did you miss this part?
Of course we know he can throw in the cold form his time at Purdue.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
That Colt and Drew do not play in similar conditions and that while Drew could get away with a weaker arm playing in 72 degs. and no wind, Colt will not have that luxury.
I also specificaly said Drew has proven he can throw in cold windy weather.
Drew could get away with a weaker arm playing in 72 degs. and no wind
Drew has proven he can throw in cold windy weather
Ok, now I’m confused.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
Drew proved he can play in cold windy weather from his time in purdue. However. he plays in the NFC south so he doesn’t have to deal with bad weather regularly (unless he plays a northern team on the road late in the season which hasn’t happened since 2008)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
If I hear McCoy compared to Brees one more time….
This isn’t meant specifically to you bross
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
yeah. I really didn’t make any comparisons, I just clarified a comment for BOaB. I have heard them too much too. Personally, I try to compare him a bit too to jeff garcia. He was a good QB in his day and colt’s mobility I think is closer to garcia than to Brees.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Right and I think most people, including myself would have taken Mannings polish and brain over Leaf’s arm anyday. However, Manning is a lot taller than Colt, had a better arm coming out of college, and most importantly – plays in a dome and has struggled in winter outdoor games. He’s only had to play a few – Colt will have to play most of them outside.
Again, for the millionth time – this is not to say Colt can’t be great
aside from temperature, how often do we play in winter conditions? even temperature is a non-issue in all but a couple of games per year. I think the weather thing gets blow out of proportion.
I would guess we play about 5-6 games in freezing temperatures every year. WIth the way the NFL is scheduling now, we are probably looking at 3 conference games to close out the year in the cold. All outdoor stadiums, I believe.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Not to mention the January games we’ll be playing in next year when we make our playoff run ;)
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 30, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
At home no less!
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 30, 2010 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
Five or six seems like way too high. It is rarely freezing in November and many times isn’t freezing or snowing for most of December. Of course, the weather varies every year, but all this snow this year in December is unusual. And that doesn’t even count possible road games in December in dome or warm weather stadiums. So I’d guess that there are usually at most 3 or 4 games in freezing cold or snow every year.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 30, 2010 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
You really need to stop defending every slight criticism of McCoy and exaggerating what people are saying to make your point. I don’t see anyone saying that McCoy can’t become a good problem, but some people are saying that the lack of arm strength may hurt him at times. That’s a fair assessment, yet you can’t even agree with that or let anyone make a comment without coming back with a exaggerated defense of McCoy. I stated above that you could see the lack of arm strength hurting him on some throws last Sunday, and you responded that it’s “not as issue” at all. That’s simply not true. It is a concern, but something he may be able to improve or overcome with other skills. You can at least acknowledge that instead of always having to defend him. It really hurts your credibility when you can’t admit he has any faults and feel the need to defend every criticism of him.
No, arm strength isn’t everything when it comes to playing QB, and I don’t see anyone saying that it is. So stop exaggerating people’s statement just to make your point. Every QB has some limitations they need to overcome — Peyton Manning isn’t mobile, Michael Vick isn’t really accurate, Drew Brees is short, etc. That hasn’t stopped any of them from becoming great QB’s. So you can acknowledge that McCoy has limitations while still saying that you have confidence in him to overcome those limitations and become a good quarterback; people will take you more seriously if you do that instead of claiming that his lack of arm strength isn’t an issue at all, because it certainly is.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 9:54 AM EST up reply actions
some people are saying that the lack of arm strength may hurt him at times
does not equal:
“It is a big concern”– which is what HenryDawg insists above. I disagreed, and I have no problem voicing my stance on that subject.
_
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
This wasn’t the only instance. I’m also referring to your response to me above and other comments in this thread.
So you can either think about what I said and your other comments in this thread (and elsewhere) or continue being a blind McCoy apologist and people won’t take you seriously.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
blind McCoy apologist
See below (re: my other posts critizing McCoy)
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
By the way, the comment from HenryDawg that you posted above came AFTER your comment that I replied to, not before. So, no, your comment wasn’t in response to that.
This is what I mean about you changing the argument and exaggerating people’s opinions to make your points. I made a comment earlier in this thread that McCoy’s lack of arm strength hurt him on a few of his throws and you responded by saying that it “wasn’t an issue at all.” This is what I have a problem with. Any time someone makes a comment like that you have to jump to his defense and claim that his lack of elite arm strength will never hurt him — that’s simply ridiculous. i wasn’t making a big deal about it and didn’t say it was a huge concern, but I pointed out that it hurt him on a few throws. And you couldn’t even agree with that.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Any time someone makes any comment at all about McCoy’s arm strength you make it sound like they’re saying he can’t be a good QB because of it then claim it’s not an issue at all. Nobody is saying that he can’t be a good QB. Yes, someone said it’s a “big concern” while others have mentioned it is something he needs to deal with and overcome. You need to be able to acknowedge that instead of going on the defensive every time that issue comes up. Or, as I said before, people will stop taking you seriously if you can’t have a reasonable discussion about McCoy.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, I’ll swallow that.
I admit that I defend McCoy to excess sometimes. I really don’t want to become perceived as a blind McCoy apologist. I did try to keep my perspective and made a number of criticisms in this thread and the game thread, but admit I still have a bias and need to temper it.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, thank you. That’s all I’m saying.
By the way, I do appreciate the contributions you’ve made to this site. We all have our faults and habits that can annoy people at times.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 10:59 AM EST up reply actions
We all have our faults and habits that can annoy people at times.
Specialbrownie reporting.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 28, 2010 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
We all have our faults and habits that can annoy people at times.
Here
(lol – thanks guys)
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
We all have our faults and habits that can annoy people at times.
I know I can at least annoy you at will Brad. Haha.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 28, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
blockquote fail
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 28, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
We all have our faults and habits that can annoy people at times.
Over in the corner. I hate Wikipedia!
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2010 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
you take that back!
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 9:43 PM EST up reply actions
Pshaw. On top of that, President Obama has turned out to be….
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 29, 2010 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
For me, I am concerned that his arm strength may be a problem down the road as he will play the majoirty of his late season/playoff games outside in windy conditions. This doesn’t mean I think he won’t or can’t be a great QB. It just means we’ll have to pay attention to see if he can develop more zip or compensate in some other way.
And I don’t disagree with what you just said.
What I disagreed with was the statement “It is a big concern”.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
BTW – if you look through my posts on this thread and the game thread, I’ve been as big a critic of McCoy’s play on Sunday as anyone here.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
The whole footwork thing is a big concern, especially after his first real game in the cold/snowish went the way it did.
It’s a legit concern, but the reason it is a concern and not something else is because he can work on it.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
He was not stepping in to his throws. He’s got strength that he doesn’t put into the ball.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
He could really benefit from an offseason of coaching under Holmgren’s direction. Unfortunately, the owners are probably going to lock out the players which is going to make this impossible.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
I actually saw a quite few times where he stepped up (sometimes twice, kinda hopping) on deep throws, but I think the problem may be an overall lack of strength.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
this was also a cold weather game. I am not surprised that he had trouble deep in cold weather.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Fickle, fickle fans…. The story of how we got here and why we’re never getting out. Blow it up again, Holmgren. It’ll make the cleveland.com crowd (and those who belong there) feel better.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 4:19 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Just because you get rid of Mangini doesn’t mean you’re blowing it up. Every player we have that’s given us hope for the future has been during the H&H era. Previously when it was Mangini and that other guy we got a lot of backup Jets players. Furthermore, from the moment Mangini was hired I knew he was not for us. I want a coach to be here longer than 3 years, even if we lose a ton of games those first 3 years, but I know Mangini is not going to be that guy.
Exactly. I don’t know whether we should keep Mangini or not getting rid of him does not necessarily equal blowing it up. The biggest problem we have had since Al Lerner died was that no one has been firmly in charge of the organization. I think we have that under control now. Or at least hope we do.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
Pretty much agree with these.
And golan, just because people think Mangini should be gone or think he will be gone doesn’t mean they’re “cleveland.com” people. The “cleveland.com” insults are, in general, getting trite.
thats true.
However, I think Golan’s point was more to the point that there a lot of new posters that have cleveland.com-esque intellectualism and quality in their comments. I think those are what he had a problem with, not someone making a well-reasoned argument against mangini.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
The problem is after a couple of games people are willing to throw Mangini under the bus impatiently, completely disregarding the big picture.
The conclusion that Mangini should be fired isn’t cleveland.com, but the way some arrive at it is.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Dec 26, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This. I think there are valid arguments to be made against Mangini and the coaching staff, but I rarely see those arguments being made. The thing that is irritating is the way so many here do a complete 180 on a weekly basis. One week it’s playoffs, the next it’s fire ‘em all. The next week things are okay, and the next it’s a foregone conclusion that Mangini and company are gone. Irritating.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
The complaints about Mangini are from about a month of poor play by this team; it isn’t changing every week. Sure, fans were praising him after the Patriots and Saints wins but that was two months ago. We’ve been playing poorly and the coaches deserve blame for that. Especially with things like the clock management at the end of the half today; that was poor coaching, and it calls in to question if Mangini is the right man to lead this team. I don’t know that answer for sure, but it’s certianly something worth discussing.
And I disagree that firing Mangini would be “blowing it up again.” We have a great front office in place and we wouldn’t be losing them, and we wouldn’t be trading away many of our best players to rebuild (like Mangini did when he took over). As I’ve mentioned before, NFL teams have changed coaches many times recently while not taking a step backwards (and, in fact, many times it led to a huge improvement the next year).
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2010 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
/REC this from Buckey Brad… This is not Cleveland.com. This is not poorly reasoned.
Stop with the ridiculous accusations and name-calling. There is a very good case against Mangini. Remember, this is not his only body of work either. It would be no better to be sitting here after 5 years with and 8-8 record your best effort than it is to start over with possibly no potential and nobody knows for sure if that would be the result with Mangini or not. In this, I trust in Holmgren and I think he could execute a coaching change without blowing up the team.
Brownsyup
I think this would go in golan’s “reasonable arguments against Mangini rarely being voiced here recently” file
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 28, 2010 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
My stance on Mangini is basically this: if he stays, that’s good. If he goes, I won’t be infuriated. I’ll be a bit disappointed, but it really won’t surprise me.
Either way, Daboll needs to go.
I think how I would feel about it depends upon the replacement. I think he deserves another year, but that argument can really go either way.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
It wouldn’t bother me if Gruden took over.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
I could see this team responding well to Gruden’s up beat style and collegiate, rah-rah nature.
Warren Sapp, who loved Tony Dungy even said that when Gruden showed up in Tampa something really changed in terms of the team’s energy and aggressiveness. One of Dungy’s flaws was he was too conservative and a lot of players felt like their best play was being restricted. They felt like Gruden opened up all their talent and let them have fun, which is exactly how the Browns looked against N.O. and N.E. and what they stopped doing the rest of the way for some reason.
WooHoo! The Tampa 2 and ten more years without a quarterback! Sign me up!
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Why would Gruden run the Tampa 2? He only ran it in Tampa because Monty Kiffin was already there. I can’t remember who is DC was in Oakland, but I’m pretty sure he leaves the defense to the DC and concentrates on the Offense. When he had Gannon in Oakland it wasn never a problem and Colt and Gannon have a lot in common. Tampa struggled to find a QB forever, that wasn’t a Gruden issue
In Oakland he had little say on anything. Al Davis makes all personnel and scheme decisions. Rob Ryan said that when he came here (He wanted to run the 3-4, Al wanted them to run the 4-3, they ran the 4-3)
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 9:04 AM EST up reply actions
The point was that the Tampa 2 is not a Gruden thing – it was already in Tampa when he got there and he didn’t change it, leading me to believe he would leave whatever defense we have here or whoever the DC will be to make those decisions.
Agree on Holmgren.
I could be wrong about Gruden. I probably don’t know enough about him to make a judgement.
Holmgren on the other hand – hard to argue with his coaching resume.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
If Holmgren returns to the sideline does he want full control of personnel? I don’t really want to see any move that forces Heckert out or makes him want to leave.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 27, 2010 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t see any reason to think that Holmgren taking over as coach would force Heckert out of town or make him want to leave. They seem to be working well together currently so I don’t see why Holmgren moving to coach would change that.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
Yep, that’s why I asked “If Holmgren returns to the sideline does he want full control of personnel?”
Holmgren just coaching and Heckert still as G.M. sounds pretty good. Having said that, I’m not sold on ousting Mangini.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 27, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
Again, I don’t see why he’d want full control of personnel if he doesn’t have it now and things seem to be working well.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2010 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
I could see him looking back on his time in Seattle and having a sour taste in his mouth about having to give up full control. Maybe he’s thinking it’s redemption time, maybe not.
Purely conjecture on my part.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 28, 2010 7:59 AM EST up reply actions
But he doesn’t have full control now so he wouldn’t be giving it up. That’s what I don’t understand about your theory.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 9:58 AM EST up reply actions
he does have it now.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
The buck stops at Holmgren’s desk. The only person with more say-so in the organization is Lerner. That is why we currently have Colt McCoy on the roster.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 29, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
he technically does have it now. He overruled Heckert to draft McCoy, remember?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
OK, he technically does, but he mostly lets Heckert run the personnel side of the team. My point is that I don’t see why that would change if he becomes head coach, so I see no reason to think that Holmgren taking over as coach would in any way force Heckert out of town. That was the comment that got this discussion started.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
I think it could end up the same way the Mangini-Kokinus arrangement worked. Kokinus technically had roster control, but it appeared as if mangini was calling the shots. Holmgren has already had that responsibility as a coach before and may want it again. I mean, it’s been one season and he’s already shown a willingness to pull rank when he thinks he’s right.
I’m not saying it would happen, just that it’s a much more real possibility than you’re giving it credit for.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
I mean, it’s been one season and he’s already shown a willingness to pull rank when he thinks he’s right.
On the other side of the coin though, he was right.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 28, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
Are you familiar with Holmgren’s history in Seattle? Because perhaps I am making assumptions about what you know that are causing some confusion in our dialogue.
The talk of Holmgren coming back to coach is to prove that he still has it. Well in Seattle, he was stripped of his general manager duties long before leaving as head coach.
Maybe, just maybe if he comes back as head coach he’ll also want to prove that he still has ‘it’ as a general manager as well.
As a few others have noted above, Holmgren currently has complete control over the Browns and could install himself in any position he wants.
Heckert left a good job in Philly because it was a step up and he had more control here in Cleveland. Any steps in the opposite direction would probably push Heckert out of the organization.
That’s where my trepidation comes from. And I think the number of posts I have devoted to this makes it seem like I’m more concerned by this than I really am as my original question was simply a hypothetical.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 28, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, I know what happened at Seattle.
But, let me ask you this — if he wanted to prove he still “has it” as a GM then why would he have hired Heckert in the first place? That’s what I don’t understand. Holmgren wanted someone to run the personnel side and that’s why he brought in Heckert. I don’t know why him becoming coach would change that, and I don’t know why it would give Heckert any less control than he has now.
I think Holmgren learned in Seattle that it’s too tough of a job to be both coach and GM at the same time. I don’t see why he’d want to become coach and get rid of Heckert at the same time. If he wanted to be GM he wouldn’t have hired in the first place.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
But the point is he lets Heckert run things.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I know, that was my point as well. Which is why I said all along that I see no reason why that would change if he becomes head coach.
What is your point? Not trying to be snarky, I’m just not sure what you’re trying to say.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 30, 2010 10:29 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t like the idea of having the coach and the guy essentially in charge of GM decisions be the same guy.
Maybe I’m jumping to too many conclusions but if he already got fed up with the coaching and he wanted to do it himself, what would happen if he got fed up with the GM? I would be worried he’d take full/too much control even if Heckert remained the GM in name.
It has worked for other head coaches in the NFL but not many of them—and full control didn’t work for Holmgren in Seattle.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
agreed.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
I’m about in the same place as both of you.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 27, 2010 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
I’m with Golan on this. Where was everyone screaming “mangini must go” after the pats game? or the saints game?
I know there are some who have always wanted him gone, but he coached the team that had some really exceptional play earlier in the year. do you really believe Mangini has all of the sudden lost his ability to coach? there are plenty of factors outside of his control that have caused this losing streak. angrily blaming him and calling for his head sets this organization back another few years.
I agree with what you’re saying. I’m not saying that Mangini has to go at all. My stance on Mangini is written above.
I interpreted what golan was saying the same way B19K did.
do you really believe Mangini has all of the sudden lost his ability to coach? there are plenty of factors outside of his control that have caused this losing streak.
I don’t, and I realize that.
Brad’s rec’d comment above puts it nicely.
On the other hand, you can’t keep a head coach based on two good games early in the season. The whole season counts, and if the team has more bad losses than good wins then there is certainly plenty of reason to fire the head coach.
As I’ve mentioned before, last year everyone said that our 4 game winning streak to end the season was a sign of progress and a reason to keep Mangini. Using that logic, wouldn’t a 4 game losing streak to end this season (should we lose to Pittsburgh) be a sign of regression and a reason to fire Mangini? Especially when two of those losses were to bad teams that we should have beaten.
It has to work both ways. If you’re going to give Mangini credit for those two good wins two months ago then you have to give him blame for the bad losses this past month.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2010 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that we should ignore the bad losses, just that we should take them in context of a full season.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:39 AM EST up reply actions
But that’s what he seems to be saying. Not directly, but he said that Mangini is the same coach who beat the Saints and Pats and he didn’t suddenly lose his ability to coach, so if he can beat those teams then he should stay on as coach. So he does seem to be implying that a few good wins overrides any bad losses that happen after that fact.
I’ve always said we should look at the entire season, which is why I haven’t made a statement either way that Mangini should be fired or brought back until after the season is over. I just don’t think we can keep pointing to two games two months ago as a reason to keep him. The whole season does matter, and you can’t say that the losses at the end of the season were because of other factors outside of the control of the head coach to absolve him of any blame for those losses.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
So he does seem to be implying that a few good wins overrides any bad losses that happen after that fact.
I think you’re getting the wrong implication. People seem to be judging mangini solely on the last three games, so he’s reminding people that it’s the same guy who looked great earlier in the season. The point is that mangini isn’t some bumbling fool, he’s clearly capable of out coaching people in the NFL.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
People seem to be judging mangini solely on the last three games
I don’t think that is the case either. People are down on Mangini because of the last two seasons where the Browns lost twice as often as they won. I’m not saying that as a Mangini hater. I think it’s a tough call, because the team has shown some progress but that progress has been far from consistent.
Does anyone remember Romeo out coaching anyone?
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 28, 2010 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
I haven’t heard anyone judge Mangini solely on the last three games so you’ll have to tell me where you’re getting that from. And I don’t think anyone thinks Mangini is a bumbling fool, either, but he might not be the right coach to win consistantly. He can clearly coach good games at times but can he do it often enough? That’s the question people are asking.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2010 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
I think the 3-game judgment comment comes from pretty widespread playoff talk around these parts (not by you in particular) as of three games ago.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 28, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
Fans are overly optimistic — that playoff talk was crazy.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 29, 2010 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
I’m in no way saying the good wins override the bad losses. I am saying there are reasons (injuries, depth) aside from Mangini that caused the losses; jst like Mangini isn’t solely responsible for the wins.
I’ll just say that I don’t believe we’d have lost to Buffalo or Cincinnati if we’d have fielded the team that we did against NE and NO. Pure speculation, of course.
Every team has injuries so that’s not a legitimate excuse. Besides, it’s not like the players the Browns have been missing are All-Pros.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 29, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Depends on who gets hurt. If you have 2 really good players and not much else and one gets hurt, it’s a tougher loss than another team’s injury.
Wasn’t everyone not long ago bragging about how Mangini improved the depth of the team?
I met a fairy today that granted me one wish. "I want to live forever," I said. "Sorry" said the fairy, "I'm not allowed to grant wishes like that!"
"Fine" I said, "I want to die after the Browns win the Super Bowl !"
"You crafty bastard," said the fairy.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 30, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
I think the depth is a lot better than where Savage left it sadly. Case in point: Terry Cousin, Andra Davis.
Thanks, I almost forgot about Terry Cousin…
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 31, 2010 1:08 AM EST up reply actions
exactly. better than before =/= good
I try to forget Terry Cousin was on the team. There are several players (such as Steptoe, Cousin, Shantee Orr) who haven’t played in the NFL since 2008 and only Steptoe is still in football (a 3rd or 4th receiver in the UFL). Its sad, but Andra Davis might be the best player from that team (that is not on the browns anymore)…oh yeah, except BE and K2.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
it absolutely is a valid excuse for the Browns. we have fewer good players, so the ones that get hurt can’t relieve the good players enough. therefore the good players we do have get worn down faster. depth and injuries feed off of one another, and it kills middling teams like ours.
Exactly, teams with less depth are more hurt comparatively than teams that have good depth. Our O-line is a terrific example of this.
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 31, 2010 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
the average team generally has 8-9 active lineman. We have 7. Out of those 7, one is a midround rookie (Lauvao), one sucks (St. Clair), and one is an average backup guard (Vallos). We have no reserve tackles left. thats why we keep having to start St. Clair. Plus, its not like we have a ton of backups who are good enough to spot start and be effective.
I would say the same at ILB. since DQ and Kaluka went down, titus brown may be our best backup ILB now.
To put it this way, if Brian Schafering starts 10 games for you on the D-Line, you probably have depth issues.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I actually think Scheffering is a good player.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 31, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree. From a personel perspective. This was like Mangini’s rookie year. The first year he bit off more than he could chew. The Mangini/Kokinis thing was a nightmare. Holmgren said nice try, but let me and Tom worry about the players and you just coach. I’m guessing Holmgren said about the same thing to Jim Brown. “Let me make the decisions and you look pretty.” This may be Mangini’s saving grace. I noted in another post that Delhomme/Wallace were H/H decisions not Mangini. The defense lacks depth and overall I think Mangini stays because of personel. Daboll gets changed out because Mike says so. I think Holmgren is mentoring Mangini.
I posted this on another site but feel it fits in reply to this
I think he should stay. Simply because if he leaves we lose Rob Ryan (unless they make him HC). With Heckert and Holmgrens philosophy being 4-3 chances are they bring in a WCO HC/OC and a 4-3 DC which means we basically build from nothing as we have 0 of the pieces in place for a 4-3 defense.
Changing head coaches every 2 seasons does not help build a solid program. Was this season better then last season? I think the resounding answer to that is YES despite the similar record. We were in every game with a chance to win it. We have 7 loses by 7 points or less.
Out of the 7 teams either in the playoffs or still technically alive in the playoff race in the AFC we have played 6 of them (and after next week will have played 2 of those teams twice.
Out of the 9 teams alive or in in the NFC we have played 3 of them.
That means 11 of our 16 games will have come against teams that were still in the playoff race (or locked in in some cases) in week 17.
Thats brutal for a rebuilding team. Especially one that has dealt with some big injuries (revolving door at QB, Fujita) and doesnt have the depth some other teams have to replace those lost players.
Not to mention the fact that HIllis got run into the ground because he was the only thing working for us.
I think Mangini needs to be given a pretty easy choice, Cut Daboll and accept Holmgrens help in picking out a OC or lose his job.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with a lot of your post here, but why would we lose Ryan just because Mangini goes? Ryan was in Oakland before here, not with Mngini
Also, I think we’re better suited for the 4-3 right now. We have two awesome tackles and I think a couple of those LBs could transition into DEs. Put Fujita in the middle – sweet.
If you are bringing in a new coach what are the chances he wants to retain the DC?
And what depth do we have for that DLine with Rubin and Rogers both having to start? Zero. Our LBS are not suited for the 4-3 either outside of Fujita. The only LBs I could see going to DE are Benard and Roth but I dont think either would be as effective.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
I would want my best players on the field as much as possible so having Rubin and Rogers at the same time would be fine. We don’t have a lot of depth now, but maybe Robaire Smith comes back to play one DE position, get another in the draft or FA. Either way we have a lot of LBs on our roster not to have depth and a lot of those guys could be exchanged for DL depth.
As far as retaining the DC – happens quite a bit. I certainly hope if Mangini goes its only to get a significant improvement at HC, if its someone offensive minded like Gruden or Holmgren himself – in either of those cases I think they could definitely keep Ryan if he wants to stay.
This isnt Madden, just because a guy is a 3-4 OLB doesnt mean you can drop him down to 4-3 DE.
Not to mention the fact that I dont think Robaire has played 4-3 DE. Its a completely different scheme then 3-4.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Robaire has played 4-3 DE about 5 years and 30 lbs ago. He wasn’t that good.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
thanks for the info. I wasnt sure and honestly didnt even know where to begin looking.
I know Fujita has experience in the 4-3 but I didnt know about anyone else.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
A lot of them do, they are just better players in a 3-4. Rogers would be a beast in a 4-3, Robaire might be ok as a DT actually, now that he’s put on weight and looks better at stopping the run, and Jackson would be good in a 4-3 if we re-sign him.
I am not sure about Rubin, he might be ok at being a 4-3 NT or he might not. Bernard might be able to become a solid DE in a 4-3, he might not. Roth isn’t prototypical for a 4-3 but he might be ok, too.
Gocong, Bowens, Barton, Kenyon Coleman, Trusnik would all be pretty useless, though many of them are not much better than “useless” in our 3-4. I think Fujita is better suited to a 3-4 at this point as well.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Oh yeah I forgot about that. I liked Robaire a lot, I feel for him. Hopefully he can become a helluva DL coach for some team that isn’t the steelers, ravens, or the university of michigan.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
we have Rubin and Rogers in at the same time a lot now.
Robaire Smith is not a 4-3 DE. He would end up being a backup DT and we would have 3 starting DTs and one starting DE (or at least guys who would be competent starting).
First you start off saying our team is better suited for a 4-3, now you are saying we can exchange guys for DL Depth (I am assuming you are talking about trades)?
You can’t rely on trades or getting a guy in FA. if you rely on a position in FA, you often end up overpaying.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I think Bowens could be a DE, but not Benard. Benard is quite undersized and his skill set fits more of an edge rusher and not a down lineman. He is undersized and doesn’t have a good repetoire of pass rush moves. these guys can do well as edge rushes (OLBs in 3-4s or 4-3s) but not when you are playing 4-3 DE. I can see Bowens switching, but he too would be a bit undersized for a 4-3.
I totally agree on the LBs. Barton sucks and is best in a 3-4 as an ILB. If he did play 4-3 (which he last did in ‘06) he would play SAM where fujita played. We could try to make him a MLB but that would fail. Gocong also played SAM in Philly. Lastly, if we tried to convert Benard to a LB, he would most likely have to be a SAM LB because his skill set really doesn’t fit a WILL. So if we switched, we would have 3-4 SAM LBs, but none who can effectively play other LB positions.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Ryan will probably leave is Mangini leaves. We should not transition to a 4-3 IMO because it would mean an overhaul of personnel. Almost all of our LBs don’t have a place in the 4-3.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
If Gruden took over, do you think Ryan would leave?
If so I don’t understand why. Enlighten me?
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Its already been said that Gruden isnt coming back until 2012.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah – don’t believe everything that’s ‘been said’. Not necessarily saying he is (coming back) – just sayin’…
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
I believe it for the reason that was given. His kid is a senior in High School and he wants to wait until after he graduates to get back into coaching.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Part of it is that coaches just like their own guys. Ryan is a part of Mangini’s staff and he has a working relationship with Mangini, and part of firing Mangini is a disapproval of the product on the field—a product that Ryan has a large part in creating and developing.
It would mean learning a new way of doing things for Ryan, and then what happens if he doesn’t get along with the new HC or he gets scapegoated for things that go wrong under the new guy? Is it worth the risk to him?
On the other side of that, the new guy would have to like Ryan enough to invite him to be on the new staff. He would have to trust that Ryan would meld with the new staff and they could really work together.
Part of this is just personalities, but part of it is the actual on-field football philosophy of the team. The offense and defense are interconnected; they can help the other out and make the team work well as a unit, or they can be better as individual parts than as a whole. The coaching philosophies and goals have to work together to create a good team.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
All good points – just one thing I’d point out:
“…or he gets scapegoated for things that go wrong under the new guy. Is it worth the risk to him?”Plenty has gone wrong lately under Mangini… has anyone anywhere scapegoated Ryan? Don’t think so. I can’t see that being a factor for Ryan.
_
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
if a new coach comes in next year and brings in his own OC and keeps Mangini’s DC who do you think will get blamed/fired if things dont go well next year?
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Who knows? Ryan’s body of work speaks for itself IMHO. I think Ryan is confident enough not to worry about his future being jeapardized or ‘getting blamed for things going badly’ just because he’ll be working under a different head coach.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Right, but these guys came in together and made the choice to do so. None of them is a holdover. You never know what would happen, but there could be a rift there between the holdover in Ryan and the new guys—“Holmgren’s guys.”
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Hell, what are the chances Ryan will be here next year regardless?
It appears there are a going to be a slew of head coach openings in the very near future. Ryan may very well be gone after this year regardless of what happens with Mangini.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
you are completely wrong about a 4-3 transition. We only have 2-3 players that would transition very smoothly; Rogers, Roth, and Fujita (I am not counting the secondary b/c this doesn’t have much of an affect on them). Fujita has done well starting at SAM LB and Roth has the size to play 4-3 DE, and rogers has played 4-3 DT. All 3 have actually shown to be more of playmakers however in a 3-4, including roth (though his skill set seems more like a high motor 4-3 DE).
Outside of that, we have nothing. Gocong has played SAM LB but got benched. He is much more suited for a 3-4. Barton is the only player on our roster who has ever played WILL LB and that was when he was in his prime, and now he is slow. I don’t see him being effective at either MLB or WLB. Benard is very undersized for a 4-3. He would actually be more suited for 4-3 Rush LB, but the SAM LB is usually bigger (like Benard) and the WILL usually does more coverage (and he is still very raw in coverage). Benard would only be effective as a SAM, not as a down lineman. If this team switched to a 4-3 with this personnel, we would get A LOT worse on D.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Holmgren is an offensive guy. I don’t see him changing the offensive system just because his teams happened to run a base 4-3 Defense.
I agree totally with the last part.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
If not a complete “blow up” would you agree that there needs to be some changes on the coaching staff (i.e. Daboll)?
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Dec 26, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Daboll should go, but I’m just saying that because I want that job.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Dec 26, 2010 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think you can swap out Assistants without blowing it up. I’m sort of interested to see what Daboll can do with more talent and another year of experience though. Also, I’m not sure that throwing Colt on the OC carousel is in his best interest. Quinn had three OCs in three years and it did him a world of good.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
It is rarely good for a QB, but I think the causation is up for debate there.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Yeah, Quinn likely sucked either way.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
BQ had two OCs here. The same one for his frost two years.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
This is true. For some reason I thought Chud was scapegoated midway through the ’08 season. There was lots of talk of it at the time, but he apparently held on to the job to the bitter end.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
You know, some of us are just Browns fans, not DBN fans vs. Cleveland.com fans. That is such a tired, boring excuse to make yourself feel smarter then you actually are.
by HenryDawg on Dec 26, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The point is, many have only recently arrived once we’ve started performing worse and the only thing they offer is fire Mangini comments. That’s the point of the Cleveland.com comment. It’s not that they are against some DBN company line, it’s that they just don’t offer anything besides so and so sucks or so and so should be fired.
One of the Fins players said he was in complete shock because he thought they were going to crush the Browns. That is just bad coaching if that is the case.
I think Mangini needs to be fired. That makes me some sort of mouth breathing idiot?
Let’s relax.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2010 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
I think Mangini needs to be fired. That makes me some sort of mouth breathing idiot?
I hope not because then the president of the browns is a ‘mouth-breathing idiot,’ too…because Mangini is going to be fired.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 26, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
No, not at all what I meant.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
It might. Depends on why you feel that way.
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
Because he slept with my wife, that’s why.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 27, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
To divert from Golan’s point- in the post-game thread it would be nice to see more comments about the game instead of firing the coach. I can understand venting on the coach if he made awful decisions during the game, but that does not appear to be the case.
And “fire the coach” rants are incredibly simplistic and quite passé at this point – not enlightening as many have grown to appreciate here at DBN. (Unless of course the coach really screwed up.)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Dec 26, 2010 8:26 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Well I read several posts about bad clock management at the end of a half two weeks in a row and predictable play calling. That’s not a rant, those are specific aspects of the game that fall on the coaches. Also, in many ways this team has seemed to quit. They are gassed, injured and seem ready for the end of the season. That’s not all coaching, but its a big part of it. Pointing that out isn’t a rant, its stating a reason this staff possibly should be fired.
I agreed with the clock management in both cases, so why some may see it as a negative, I don’t. Predictable play calling doesn’t fall on Mangini (a little, but not a lot). I don’t think the team has quit, I think they aren’t very talented.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
The weird thing about the play calling is that its fairly balanced and they do mix in some wrinkles. It shouldn’t be predictable but for some reason its easy to see what they want to do a lot and they don’t seem to be able to find mismatches.
the biggest issue ive seen with the playcalling is that the script seems to be the same weekly.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
They are gassed, injured
That’s not all coaching, but its a big part of it.
I don’t see how physical aspects like how worn out players are and how many injuries we have has anything to do with coaching, let alone coaching being a big part of it. These 2 things go hand in hand, because when teams lose a few guys like a Fujita or a Pashos, that limits our depth and guys have to play more downs. this leads to players being gassed quicker.
I think this team needs more talent and quality depth. It is easy for a team like the Pats or the Steelers to have a few injuries because they have quality depth and their guys don’t get gassed as easily.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
The only game I see with guaranteed meaning in Week 17 is Seahawks vs. Rams (win and in). If I’m doing this correctly, the Seahawks’ game against Tampa (at least from Seattle’s perspective), has literally no meaning. A win or a loss does not hurt them.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
Presuming you’re talking about playoff implications for both teams, Bears vs. Packers will be for a first round bye v.s. playoff spot respectively.
Most of the other games are only meaningful to one team, but the way I’m seeing it now, the only team that could rest their starters next week without affecting their playoff position is New England. Every other team has something to play for.
There is a chance that based on other games that occur before the Bears/Packers game, Green Bay could clinch without playing. The Seahawks/Rams is guaranteed. I have a feeling they’ll name Bears/Packers anyway, since odds are the Packers will need to win to be in, and Bears might be win and bye.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 26, 2010 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
Really? How’s that?
I also can’t see NBC flexing a game between two teams with losing records to prime time, despite the implications. Hell they flexed the Vikings/Eagles game originally scheduled for tonight two weeks ago and the Viks were already out of the playoff hunt by then.
They go for ratings. Rams/Seahawks isn’t a draw, despite the importance of the game.
I think the Vikings/Eagles flex was a Mike Vick move, more than a Vikings move.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2010 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
The one unwritten rule in football: You are only as good an offense so long as defenses can’t catch up with you. All 31 teams know the Browns M.O.—run with Hillis, watch for McCoy roll outs, know the receivers aren’t break away talent to get the job done. I hate saying it, but the Ravens did their homework from the last time they played us. They neutralized the run, they covered the WR to give no lane for McCoy to throw to, and McCoy (like it or not) is still a rookie and today made his weaknesses shine out. I hate losing to the ratbirds; I hate they are going to advance to the playoffs, but we’re not there yet despite times we shined brightly.
Next week is last game of the season and the Steelers will have our MO as much as the ratbirds do. Brace for another loss, but also hope in the fact despite these losses changes are on the way. Not sure if it means coaching or personnel, or both, but a change is going to happen. This offense will not be offensive as it has been the past few weeks. Considering the outcome of today and next week I am still hopeful for the Browns to be a much better unit for the upcoming season.
That, and I am wearing the hell out of my McCoy jersey Xmas gift despite today.
"Time to eat all your words, swallow your pride, open your eyes!"--Tears for Fears (Sowing the Seeds of Love)
"But I still believe
I still believe
Through the pain
And the grief
Through the lives
Through the storms
Through the cries
And through the wars
Oh, I still believe"---The Call (Fitting for a TRUE Cleveland Browns fan)
Looks like we are trending to the 8th overall pick. Should be able to get the top WR or DL there. The nice thing – those top tier WRs (top 5 talent) do not flame out very often. The impact of a Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson on our offense would be incredible – especially with Holmgren coaching.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
Highly drafted WRs flame out fairly often. Not a reason to not take one but it does happen.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
They are batting .333
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
good in baseball, bad in drafting.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
They took 4 in the top 10 in 4 consecutive years. Charles Rogers, Calvin, Mike Williams and Roy Williams.
Incredibly dumb drafting even if they are BPA each year.
I forgot about Mike Williams, and I’d consider giving them partial credit for Roy, who was good for them for a little and then got them draft picks from Dallas.
My point is that they weren’t doing well enough to have Megatron justify all of the picks they spent trying to find him.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Not in his rookie season, at least. But they can have a big impact in a couple years after they learn the game.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2010 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
Hot damn McCoy sucked today
I met a fairy today that granted me one wish. "I want to live forever," I said. "Sorry" said the fairy, "I'm not allowed to grant wishes like that!"
"Fine" I said, "I want to die after the Browns win the Super Bowl !"
"You crafty bastard," said the fairy.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 26, 2010 5:39 PM EST reply actions
Indeed.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 26, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
McCoy gave the game away today. Worst I’ve ever seen him play.
I hope this game doesn’t hurt his confidence. Knowing what I know about him he’ll come back strong.
To make myself feel a little better I just took another peek at Sam Bradford’s numbers in his first five starts:
6 TDs, 8 interceptions on 57% passing, 11 sacks, compiling a QB rating of 69.6. This was against Arizona, Oakland, Washington, Seattle, and Detroit :-/
(BTW These stellar numbers were after a full preason starting with the 1st string and a team built around him from the beginning – kind of helps keep things in perspective, ease the pain a bit when I see McCoy struggle as a rookie…)
I’ve decided I want to see Mangini and Ryan back next year, but Daboll probably needs to go. Today’s loss was not his fault, but I’m making that statement based on his body of work running the offense this year.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 5:45 PM EST reply actions
I’ll agree with that assessment on the coaching- and I’m also sure Holmgren can land us a very nice OC. I still think Mangini is good enough for now, I’d like a wee bit of stability (I was looking at the 2007 squad earlier and noting how few of those players we have left).
Is Fitzgerald a FA end of this season? I’m sure I heard one of the top guys was- but being on a sloing team will they want to come to us anyhow?
Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!
Doesn’t look like Fitzgerald is going anywhere.
Regardless, as much as I would love to see Fitzgerald in a Browns jersey, I figure ultimately he’d be to be too costly in terms of draft currency. We have too many other needs I think.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Draft currency? I only had FA in mind- we’re noway near being the sort of team that can trade a draft for some key players. In fact I still think cashing in on Braylon & K2 was the right thing to do.
Andre Johnson would be the WR I’d most like to have, in an ideal world.
Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!
I want to see the Browns take Julio Jones in the 1st round.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
Funny, I was about to pull up some Bradford stats in comparison too.
His poor game was against the Ravens, not some team with a crappy secondary. Maybe he shouldn’t have been throwing Ed Reed’s way— that could’ve saved two picks. Almost all rookies have games like this, especially quarterbacks. My confidence in him really hasn’t gone down that much. A decent game against Pittsburgh, and a lot of people won’t be talking about this as much.
Hard to avoid Reed- I think he was coming over in support from centrefield.
And Ed Reed has played this game before.
Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!
I didn’t mention it because I don’t intend to slam Bradford, but in addition to the stats I mentioned, Bradford had five interceptions in his last three games (before today) with no TDs.
All that said, I believe Bradford will be a great quarterback, and I mean possibly a GREAT quarterback.
When it comes to rookie QBs, the first year there are just going to be difficult games and difficult stretches. Bottom line.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
if anything the game is a relief. ALL rookies have a bad game, and colt finally got his out of the way
by macdowellm03 on Dec 26, 2010 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
The Ravens’ secondary is crappy…except for Ed Reed.
He wasn’t throwing Ed Reed’s way, it’s just that Ed Reed can do things a lot of other safeties can’t. McCoy was throwing routes that *should have been open against the coverages Baltimore was in, but Reed plays so smart that he was able to diagnose what we were trying to do and so athletic that he was able to take it away.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Ed Reed is known for baiting rookies into thinking a WR is open.
I met a fairy today that granted me one wish. "I want to live forever," I said. "Sorry" said the fairy, "I'm not allowed to grant wishes like that!"
"Fine" I said, "I want to die after the Browns win the Super Bowl !"
"You crafty bastard," said the fairy.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 26, 2010 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
Reed is destined for the Hall of Fame.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with all of this.
I truly think Colt isn’t shaken. There is that “it” quality that is hard to define that he has. Whenever DA or Quinn threw a pick, they collapsed. DA started making poorer decisions, and quinn threw it to the RB every time after that. Colt goes back out there and heaves 40 yard passes to robiskie/demetrius williams. the guy has the poise and confidence to be a winner in this league (cue: He’s a WINNER trope).
I agree with your sentiment on the coaching staff. the offensive playcalling looked better, but was still not good. I had no real problems with the decision making that would be more up to mangini (like the clock management or the decision to go for the onside kick). while these scenarios in hindsight don’t look good, they were the right calls but poorly executed.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
For as bad as his day was, he still played great for quite awhile before losing it later in the game. I wouldn’t have a single concern about this at all – a rookie having a bad day against a really good D? Big deal, every QB in the league has games like this, even Payton Manning.
While I had some concerns about the floaters, bigger, better receivers would have beat out DBs most of the time for those passes, I don’t why our recs seem smaller and weaker than DBs, but they are really average. Also that Off PI call was complete bullshit.
I know it was discussed in the game thread, but the clock management at the end of the first half bugged me.
This team needs to quit being so cautious. At some point in time, this offense needs to make plays. In my mind, coaching scared leads to playing scared. We are already handicapped enough on offense, we can’t help the defense out by playing safe.
THIS to everything you just said.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
Not so sure, In the context it was OK- we stood to either go 14-13 up of 13-10 down.
The second half implosion wasn’t even a twinkle in Daboll’s eye at that stage.
Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!
Even Romeo Crennel thought it was horrible clock management.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
I think they probably should have given themselves enough time for one more play, but in general I didn’t have a huge problem. Its a risk/reward thing that relies on execution. If we execute on either of those passes (especially the 2nd down one where Robo was quite open), mangini looks brilliant for leaving them such little time.
The team still lost by 10 so it really has little bearing
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
The team still lost by 10 so it really has little bearing
Yes it does. If his clock management sucks in a two score game, its going to suck in a close game.
We had three timeouts and two minutes. We went 11 yards, kicked on third down and had a timeout in our pocket when we kicked.
That is piss-poor clock management.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2010 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed. That was so frustrating to watch.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
The team still lost by 10 so it really has little bearing
this was describing the game, not his whole coaching resume. assuming something so idiotic seems stupid (either that or you subconsciously think I am a complete moron). that decision had little bearing on the game’s outcome. It has bearing (clearly) on the overall ability of Mangini.
It was not good clock management, but it was not Piss Poor IMO. It could have been better, but I have seen that clock management strategy before. My only criticism is he should have given himself about 2-3 more seconds.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t one of those plays take over ten seconds, or close to it? I think they had about 17 seconds left on the second down play and then that play took 11 seconds. That is unheard of. Your QB needs to throw that ball much sooner, and if he does, they have plenty of time to take the shot on third down. I had no problem with the strategy, but the execution sucked.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
yes. the execution sucked. If that play lets say takes 7 seconds instead of 11 (and 7 is about average in length for a play), you have 10 seconds and a timeout, which means you can try a 3rd down.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
exactly my point, and on the 15 yard line there’s really no reason you can’t run about a 5 second play, leaving you another couple seconds on top of that.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
yes. there was enough time to run 3 decently executed plays. the problem was that it was 2 broken plays in a row, both of which took a long time.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Another piss poor judgement call by Daboll on those
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
That is exactly my point though – when you have a rookie QB you have to allow more wiggle room – give the guy some more time because his NFL clock isn’t so accurate yet.
and then end up leaving Baltimore time? It was a matter of 2 seconds too much being off the clock.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
How much time do you think you would leave them? Maybe 10-15 seconds? Geez have a little less confidence in our D why don’t ya?
Also this excuse is wearing thin when 10 minutes later you’re taking an extremely high risk of giving them the ball at our own 40 to start a half. I would rather see if they would even try to drive 80 yards with 15 seconds vs. giving them 40 yards with as much time as they want
You mean after the half when our D has been resting? I trust our D alot more when they havent been on the field. How many times this season has our D given up a huge play with almost 0 time left?
Look at the Jets game if you want an example of what could happen with almost no time left.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
I feel like you’re really stretching here. Big difference between the end of the half and the end of the game.
But yes, I could also look at the end of the Jags, Bills, Panthers and several others games as well
I disagree. I think a team is just as worn out at the end of a first half as they are towards the end of the game.
Not to mention if the Ravens do pull off a huge play and score then we are looking at a 6-10 point deficit at the end of the half with them getting the ball back. Not worth it in my opinion, take the 3 points and move on.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
Who cares if they have 30 seconds less.
If our defense can’t stop Baltimore with 30 seconds, then we don’t deserve to win anyways.
Coach scared, play scared.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 28, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
When you are playing at a lower talent level then another team you need to do things like this to minimize the damage that they can inflict on you. You can call it playing scared, I prefer to think of it as playing smart.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 29, 2010 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
When you are playing at a lower talent level, you need to make the most out of every chance you get.
We weren’t going to beat Baltimore kicking FG’s.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 29, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Forcing your team to kick a field goal on third down and with two time outs in your pocket at the end of the half is most certainly not smart football — I’d call that the exact opposite.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 29, 2010 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
Clausen is one player who I believe was highly overrated in the draft.
But then again, you never know where the guy will be two years from now.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
I thought he was a guy who looked good in a stat-boosting offense but never truly wowed me in any capacity.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
See also Brady Quinn.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
yep. I felt the same way about him. I don’t remember if it was here or on the game thread, but I talked about how BQ never had the “it” factor for me and Colt has always seemed to have it.
Why was he drafted so high??
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Phil Savage fell for the hype and thought he was getting a steal.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 27, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
Clausen: 10 of 23 for 72 yards, with an interception yesterday against Pittsburgh.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
yes. a 1/1 TD/INT ratio against them isn’t anything special. I didn’t see the game, but did he get another TD off of a horribly blown coverage like he did his first game?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I thought it was less terribly blown coverage and more an amazing catch.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Little of both.
"There are a lot of Steelers fans around the city so I hope people go to work and kick those Steelers fans.’’ - Josh Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 26, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
Against a crappy defense, though. I just hate how the announcers are acting like this has solidified his destiny of becoming a great QB.
Meh. Hindsight. I wouldn’t be saying that on draft day. Like I said, I’ll admit I was wrong about his NFL potential when I see him go against a defense like Baltimore or Pittsburgh.
I didn’t say I’d draft him on the 1st round but if he’d fallen the way McCoy did I would have taken him.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
yes. he has gone up against 2 Ds that are playing well below average this year, especially in FOs rankings for pass coverage (24th and 31st respectively in FOs DVOA rankings for pass D)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I don’t see Tebow as a legit NFL QB long term.
Fullback? Maybe.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
He’s playing better than I expected him to.
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
He played against the worst team in the league in pass defense today.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
Would he play WR-OLB both ways though?
Welcome Joe!
Go Seneca!
by LondonBrown on Dec 26, 2010 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Fullback. That’s pretty much his future in the NFL.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
He seems to be starting at QB right now.
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
Yes, unfortunately for the Broncos.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2010 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You mean it’s bad that for the teams that need a QB and don’t have Tebow, or that it’s bad for Browns fans that hate the Broncos because Tebow single handedly lead them to a victory?
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
I don’t hate the Broncos (truth be told I can’t really name a team I ‘hate’ – used to ‘hate’ the Cowboys but now that they’ve had a a decade of humble pie the ‘hate’ has turned into indifference).
I don’t think Tebow is cut out to be a starting NFL QB. That’s all I’m saying.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 9:18 AM EST up reply actions
You picked a strange time to say it. Playing well vs. a bad defense leads one to believe he’s not cut out to play QB? Playing well vs. a great pass defense (Oakland) leads one to believe he’s not cut out to play QB?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a bumbling bronco fan willing to call Tebow the next better than Elway. But you can’t throw him under the bus based on the last 2 games. If anything, he’s definitely earned a shot.
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
Yes, he’s certainly earned a shot.
Truth be told, I came down with the “Tebow hysteria fatigue” syndrome long ago. I always had serious doubts that his skills would translate to the NFL. I tend to have an admittedly negative reaction (in more than one way) when he has one good outing and the next day in the press he is the new sensation. I remember early in the season before he had ever started and he got to finally play in a game. He ran for a one yard TD. That was his only contribution to the game. One yard rushing (for a TD). Checking several sports sites I frequent you’d have thought he had just resolved the peace talks in the Middle East. But I digress…
You’re right, he deserves to have his shot just like the other rookie QBs.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
So we have a real shot at finishing last in the division with Cinci winning again.
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Dec 26, 2010 6:57 PM EST reply actions
Haha, thousands of fantasy owners either won or lost their Championship game with that Manning slide.
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
My money team straight collapsed. Then again, no MJD, no Andre Johnson makes for a long day.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2010 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
I started Andre Johnson because I was a family Christmas get together. By the time I realized he was out… it was too late.
I’m up by 1 point with Matt Bryant to play, he has Maclin.
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
I didn’t start Mannigham and he hangs up 19pts!!! Percy better play his a$$ off on Tuesday!
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
This is a pretty good article about McCoy.
Warning: This author thinks Mangini will be fired, so if you don’t want to read about it, don’t.
You had me really dissappointed with the Bud Shaw article, but then you redeem yourself with Pluto. You’re taking me on a roller coaster ride here, Em.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
You’re taking me on a roller coaster ride here, Em.
Baha, she’s a woman Ruf.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 26, 2010 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
SB – what grade are you in?
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
14th or 15th, I think.
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
Considered 15th, physically 14th.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 27, 2010 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
people still use numbers to describe what year of college they’re in?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
I just went off of Simmsinns.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 28, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
I thought the Bud Shaw article was a good one.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
That’s my opinion, yes. Bud Shaw might find a nut every once in a while but he’s still a blind squirrel. Windhorst was good, too.
Shaw usually has this awful “woe is me” attitude, talking about how Cleveland sports are hopeless. If he thinks that, he should go write for Buffalo.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
yes, that is what annoys me about shaw. He isn’t a terrible writer, but this style is completely aggravating. My 2nd favorite on the browns would probably be MKC just because Shaw and grossi are so annoying.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Go root for Buffalo, indeed. But in fairness, to Mr. Shaw, I find him generally tolerable, and on occasion, even enlightening. I cannot fault a Clevelander for pessimism, much as I want to.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
I honestly can not stand most of the Cleveland media. They overblow every situation (remember the Shaun Rogers/Mangini “Snub”) and always think that change is the best way to accomplish anything.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 7:44 AM EST up reply actions
That’s why I appreciate Terry Pluto. He generally doesn’t overreact in either direction and he actually digs for some real news and analysis that I just don’t seem to get from the others.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 28, 2010 8:05 AM EST up reply actions
Also point 10. I think the cold weather/high winds will just be something he has to learn to adjust to.
It should be mentioned that he grew up playing in the windiest state in the country
(and Oklahoma, Kansas, etc. i.e. Big 12 opponents rank right up there…).
The cold weather and snow – that’s another matter.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 27, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
A lot of folks seem to be giving McCoy a pass on his play today based on his rookie status, but frankly I didn’t think that his first two interceptions were a result of rookie decision making so much as poorly thrown passes. They Both looked horribly under thrown. The third one looked more like a good defensive play. I hope he does better next week because I am tired of looking for QBs.
It was nice to see Bell gaining positive yards. Almost makes one think that we could potentially move the ball without Hillis if we had to.
I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.
McCoy acknowledged that they were poor passes.
“Turnovers killed us today and most of it is on me,” said McCoy, whose record as a starter dropped to 2-5. “I’ve got to fix that. I’ve got to take care of the ball and I’ve got to know where Ed Reed is. He read my eyes the whole game and made plays. As a quarterback, you have to go back and watch it. I’m going to play these guys for a long time.”
Em (hope you don’t mind if I call you that), I like his confidence, too. I hate to fall back on colloquialisms like “he’s a winner”, but I just plain like this kid. Not in the “I hope he’s good” Brady Quinn manner, either. I just get the sense that he is used to winning, and not only WANTS to win, but EXPECTS to win. His confidence seems in balance with his abilities, and he has shown he’ll be a man and admit when he F’s up. I really like everything about him, it just reeks of football (and victory). I’m not a big stat guy, and I won’t attempt to use them to justify my feelings—I just like this kid, and I think he’ll be mentioned in the same tones as Kosar, Sipe, and Graham in years to come. My two cents, could be wrong…I still love Colt McCoy!
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 12:36 AM EST up reply actions
I would usually be pessimistic as ever about a young QB, but I just can’t help getting excited about McCoy, much as I would rather not at this point.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
I’ll make three. I’m almost ready to sign up with the Blind McCoy Apologists!
Seriously, not that I’m declaring him Drew Brees Mk. II or anything, but after our last couple of years of winners at QB, I don’t know how you can’t be at least a little excited about Colt.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
I, too, was quite pleased with the utility we got out of Mike Bell today. First time he has looked like a NFL-caliber RB since we acquired him.
I didn’t understand the TV commentators’ negativity toward Hillis’ performance, however…he wasn’t missing the hole or hesitating; I still saw him bowl over multiple Ravens players. It’s just hard to run when there’s 3-4 guys hanging on you. Even before Ray Lewis’ comments, I doubt anyone thought Peyton was going to put up 144 yards again. I thought he showed up to play today, I have no complaints about his performance.
Colt’s interceptions definitely looked underthrown, though it’s sometimes hard (for me) to say if the QB or the WR screwed up. Regardless of who made the mistake, Colt’s deep throws had an uncomfortable amount of air under them. I hope he starts showing more touch, like he did on the TD pass to Robert Royal last week.
by Combat Medic on Dec 27, 2010 7:45 AM EST up reply actions
I think we were calling a lot of zone runs for Mike Bell, something he should be good at considering where he’s had (a mild level of) success in the league.
The INTs are on Colt.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Good insight, Rufio, thank you. I don’t want to have your babies, or anything, but I have learned so much from your play breakdowns, I feel like I owe you tuition! If you say McCoy screwed up those plays, I believe you. That was my impression, too, but I have learned (from you and others) that what appears to be a poor play by the QB is often a poor play by the receiver.
Since I doubt there’s a better forum for this, I just want to thank you specifically for opening my eyes to REAL football. Before I began following DBN, I was just a “casual” fan, I guess, in that I didn’t understand anything more than what the announcers told me. Now I view the game in a whole new light, a series of matchups at individual positions, each play a new game. I have such a deeper understanding of the game of football now, it’s gone from checkers to chess. I lack the vocabulary to express my gratitude, but the best I can do is say “thank you, for making me realize there’s more to football than a bunch of 300-lb. guys playing grabass!”
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
Haha I don’t want babies any time soon, but I’d take some of that tuition $. Not if you earned it in the military, though, I would probably feel guilty about that (in that your job requires you to potentially risk your life and what I do here involves me sitting and typing).
No prob, I love doing that kind of stuff. Thanks for reading.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
it’s gone from checkers to chess
I have a lot of friends who play[ed] soccer, and this is one of the more difficult things to explain about football. also,
there’s more to football than a bunch of 300-lb. guys playing grabass!"This made me laugh.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
DL love to grab you in places they shouldn’t when you’re on the OL though…
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 28, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
I know all about that.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
I’d second that sentiment. I’ve really just been a casual fan for quite some time
(long story… suffice to say I’m somewhat of a nomad geographically with no NFL team to root for until becoming a Browns fan this year…).
After joining this site I’ve been hooked, and have soaked in much of the great analysis around here – rufio being probably the most astute and best source IMHO.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 8:41 AM EST up reply actions
Rufio rocks.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
In spite of Bell getting positive yards, the Browns haven’t been able to run the ball effectively since the first series in Buffalo. That is really hurting this offense.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 27, 2010 9:02 AM EST up reply actions
I will give Mangini credit in 2 very important areas.
1. The team is always prepared, always motivated – they never mail in a game.
2. I think if a player has the intangible and the talent, Mangini will develop him nicely. The rookies developed nicely, Bernard, Rubin have stepped up.
Unfortunatelys the offense is just not an NFL offense and he always plays for FGs – that will be on his tombstone.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
I feel that they’ve looked flat in all three myself, although maybe a bit less so this week. Very disappointing.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 27, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
Browns are the only team in the league to not allow 30 pts. Margin of victory has never been embarrassing.
A lot of “THIS”. The team has looked, well, uninspired at times, but never have they looked incompetent. Say what you will, but this is a vast improvement over NOT JUST past Browns teams, but also many NFL franchises today. Mangini’s conservative play style may not put up blow-out victories for us, but we are never far out of a game. And that says a lot, to me.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
that is a very interesting stat. Also, the browns are 7th in the league in terms of points allowed and 6th in interceptions. sounds like good defense to me
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Two points per game. I put up a fanpost about it.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 28, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
Bill Walsh went from 2 wins to 6 wins to 13 wins in his first 3 years with the 49ers.
Is there any chance that Mangini could be on the verge of that kind of breakout in his 3rd year?
I don’t know why everyone is so mad at the coaches for this one. there were a couple questionable decisions I can think of (end of the half clock management, onside kick), but it’s not like mangini was out there throwing 3 picks and fumbling. I would have been astounded if we had one a game where we turned the ball over four times.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
Someone said this earlier, but it’s not today’s game per se, more the last month in whole.
But if I had one giant problem is that they seem to be over thinking, and over coaching to keep games close instead of just trying to score as many points as possible. I could be wrong, but others have mentioned it as well.
I really doubt they are coaching to 3 and out or turn the ball over which has been what has killed us the past month. Hard to try and go for the throat when you cant hold onto the ball.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Yes the execution was problematic, but in key situations this season (particularly at the end of halfs) the coaches were more worried about leaving time for the opposition rather than being more aggressive with trying to score points. I get that you don’t want to leave time for the other team, that’s great, but priority #1 needs to be to get a TD.
which we tried to do and then atleast got some points on the board. Alot of things that hurt us were poor execution. The onside kick attempt for example put our D in a bad spot an allowed them to get a quick TD that put a huge burden on the Offense. If we can recover (and we would have had the ball gone 10 yds) the offense suddenly has a chance to drive for atleast the tie if not the lead.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah that was risky and in hindsight, a pretty poor call, but I didn’t blame the coaches then for the call, and I don’t now, but really – down by 3 I don’t see how you gift wrap that field position for them.
We actually moved the ball pretty well all day – just a few bad throws and fumble derailed us, otherwise I could see this being another win.
Ah, respectfully, I beg to differ, HenryDawg. The only difference between a “poor call” and brilliant call there was success. Anyone who questions the Ravens’ superior talent has issues; if we were going to pull out a W, we needed to produce lightning in a bottle, a la the Saints game. I realize you said you “don’t blame the coaches” but then you also say it was a “poor call.” Either it was a gutsy call to try for a win, or it was a stupid call because we had a real shot to win on pure talent. Or we should have just forfeited, because Baltimore was going to win. You tell me. I don’t mean to sound like a dick, so if I’m leaving out an option, let me know…I suppose we could just kick the ball away, and hope for the best, but I file that under “hoping we win based on talent”.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
You don’t sound like a dick at all. I appreciate the aggresive coaching but what kills me is that they play ultra conservative with the clock at the end of the first half, then turn around and play crazy ball to start the second half. It’s just not playing the odds right.
Also I don’t think it is an either/or with being gutsy or stupid. The call was gutsy in some sense and stupid in other ways (there’s a fine line between gutsy and stupid).
I also don’t think its as simple to say “Baltimore was going to win” or we should have just forfieted because they have more talent. The fact is that we were down by 3, the defense was playing pretty damn well considering we gave B-more short fields all day and kept killing our own drives so I would say, kick it deep and trust the D to turn field position (it worked already once before when we stopped them after an int, got good field position and then a TD).
Obviously the problem with the play was the execution, not the call itself, but you can make a good case that any onside kick has a low percentage of success and so just based on that it was not a good call.
when it goes wrong in hindsight, it can seem like a piss poor call.
However, when it works (like it worked when Sean Payton tried it), you are hailed as a genius.
The variable? execution. Disregarding the importance of the game, it was very similar situations, almost identical. the only difference is that Dawson couldn’t kick it 10 yards.
That onside call was gutsy and i loved it. I try to differentiate between poor playcalling and poor execution because bad execution can make the playcalling look bad and vice versa. In many games, it has been mostly bad playcalling, with a bit of poor execution. here (and in this game), it wasn’t bad playcalling, just piss poor execution.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
not to mention the fact that if you rewatch the play the only players withing 5 yds of the ball were browns. We had guys waiting for it to go 10 yds and it just didnt make it. If Dawson gets a better kick we start the second half with the football and a lot of momentum.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 7:39 AM EST up reply actions
yep. I just saw haden boxing out the ravens players just watching the ball. the players looked to be well coached on that. they were in the right spots, they made sure not to touch the ball until 10 yards.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Outside of the actual kick it was probably one of the best executed onside kicks ive ever seen….
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
I totally agree. I watched the replay of the saints one and it wasn’t perfectly executed. the coverage team was solid, but weren’t in position like ours. there was actually a big scuffle for the ball. The difference? their kicker nailed the kick. I would hope a veteran like dawson makes that kick.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I have to point to the execution in this game. Obviously, the coaches could have done things better but this game is largely on the players.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
that’s how I feel as well.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
I did like the onside kick call. I thought honestly it was brilliant. In hindsight it looks bad, but I stand by the decision. the fail on that play was not on the playcalling, but on the veteran kicker who didn’t get the bal 10 yards. If that is executed, mangini looks brilliant.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I just thought at the time it was an unnecessary risk. The ravens had really only put together one sustained drive, and that ended in a field goal. I certainly understand the decision to do it, but I didn’t think it was worth the risk.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
I blame Dawson again. I don’t know why, but he’s lost a step this year. He can’t easily kick it 10 yards? Really?
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 28, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
I am a little worried that Holmgren may be targeted by SF – he is an SF native after all. I wonder if he would split for the right conditions.
he would have to convince the Browns to buy out his contract.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
or he would owe us quite a bit of money.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 27, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
It's on the coaching.
The team comes out to play only allowing 26 1st quarter points so far this year and scoring on alot more opening drives, then the coaching blows it by halftime, 3rd quarter. If ‘The Colt" can will this team to victory against the Squealers Sunday then he’s a keeper, if he plays like he did against the Ratbirds, then trade him to the Cowboys for draft picks There’s better QB’s in this draft. Pitt’s gonna be playing hard for a bye. The value of homefield is something this team needs to awaken to. The coaches haven’t though with that onside kick to start 3rd quarter only down by 3, WHAT? That was absurd!!! I’ve officially lost faith in Mangini/DaBoll. Will Ryan stay if not offered head job…lol…
Scarred Old Slaver knows he's doin' alright, hear him whip the women just around midnite. "Brown Sugar", The Rolling Stones
Ravens are a legitimate Super Bowl contender. I am not pleased with the past month of games, but I think everyone got a little ahead of themselves. Heckert’s first draft looks incredible and we need to keep adding talent. We are probably just below middle of the pack team which was up against the hardest schedule in the league. Team was deflated a bit when the right side of our line went down, Fujita, and Colt had to miss a few games. Every team deals with injuries, but for a team that is one dimensional offensively the right side going down and Hillis wearing down basically ended our offensive effectiveness. Let’s give Holmgren and Heckert a couple more years to see if they can replicate the 2010 draft. If so, the Browns will be fine. I don’t think coaching is the problem at all, except maybe offensively but that is not really the sort of thing I am able to separate with the lack of talent we have on that side of the ball.
The only losses that really frustrate me are Cincy and Buffalo. Even Cincy doesn’t bother me that much because it is very hard to beat a division team twice in the same year and they have erratic talent.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Now, this is very interesting to me, because I value your opinion, Rufio…certainly as a fan I wanted to win these games, but what did you see/not see in the game plan that you felt should have been there? Not many people will question the assertion that Cincy has more talent on the offensive side of the ball, and while their defense may not be as flashy, they have some real talent there, too. Buffalo I view in much the same light as us this year: surprisingly plucky. Not the epithet I want on my tombstone, but I’ll take it for one year. I feel like the Bills are roughly equivalent, talent-wise; they may not have the sunny long term disposition I feel the Browns have, but currently they are definitely at our caliber.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 1:07 AM EST up reply actions
I was really frustrated at the playcalling and Delhomme’s play during the Buffalo game. I honestly haven’t gone back and looked at it but I think I felt like we fell in to the pattern we’ve seen too often this year; come out with a smart, balanced game plan to begin the game, get really conservative for 2-2.5 quarters then make adjustments and get aggressive again too late in the 4th quarter.
We did an OK job of running the ball in that game, but our passing game was downright awful. We couldn’t protect to save our lives.
Cincy has some talent, I just don’t expect them to be able to get consistent production out of that talent because of the kinds of character risks they have on that team. In Pioli’s words, I don’t know if I can count on those players to bring it week in and week out. So it kind of makes sense that they would be up and down versus us.
In that game I was disappointed we couldn’t score more points when we were running for over 4 YPC and passing for almost 9 YPA, and the most glaring thing was our run D didn’t come to play; we were awful stopping the run that week.
But the bottom line is that both of those teams don’t have many wins this year and they both beat us. We didn’t bring our A game against either team.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I cannot counter your “we didn’t bring the A game” argument with any statistics. All I can say is, by admitting we needed our A game to beat these guys (both 4-11 right now), you realize our roster is severely talent-deficient. Ergo, coaching is not likely to make much of an impact in the W-L record…unless you believe there is a coach who can get players to turn in the best game of their careers every single week.
I definitely wanted to win both of these games, and Buffalo in particular—god I was praying for a Snowbowl!—but I think we have to realize both sides of the coin when it comes to conservative game plans: we are not going to have dominating scores going into the fourth quarter; however, we are not going to face insurmountable opponent leads going into the fourth quarter.
I am not the football genius you are; perhaps it is better to blow out the bad teams and live/die by the turnover against good teams. (By this, I mean play un-conservatively.) I just feel like our coaching staff, as currently configured, puts us in a position to win every week. What more can you ask?
I feel like I should append this to all of my posts, but I am no expert, and i readily cede to more knowledgeable people! I am just trying to work with the information base I have at hand. If I ever sound sarcastic or condescending, it is a failure on my part.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
I feel like I should append this to all of my posts, but I am no expert…
No need… I think there are many of us around here in that boat.
One of the things I like about this blog is that people (well, most people) are very tolerant and don’t take themselves too seriously. And when someone does get testy or judgemental they usually get called out or it just breaks down into some light hearted humor (or some raunchy jokes on occasion :)
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 8:51 AM EST up reply actions
I feel like I should append this to all of my posts, but I am no expert, and i readily cede to more knowledgeable people
Just relax, this is fun.
I’ve read some interesting stuff on winning as an underdog. Basically the theory is when you are David you have nothing to lose and you can try to change the way you think about the game in order to win. Usually this involves unconventional play—take the spread offense in college, for example. Teams like WVU or Texas Tech that probably couldn’t recruit well enough to try to pound the ball to win started spreading people out and running new types of plays. Boise took down Oklahoma by running the Statue of Liberty play, etc.
I think we did some of this when we felt we were the underdog—the fake punt and the lateral on the return against New Orleans, for example. I think if we truly believe we can just line up and out-talent any team in the NFL right now we are probably mistaken. Even Buffalo. The NFL has a lot of parity in terms of talent, so a full-fledged “David” approach might not work either.
I think one of the biggest problems with the offense right now is our risk/reward equation has been…just flat out broken. When we take risks, we don’t get enough reward—this is a problem for both the players and the coaches—and when we don’t take risks we still end up turning it over. I know the coaching staff wants to limit turnovers because turnovers are the stat that correlate the best to winning but I think they are coaching out of fear which is never a good attitude. I think we probably need both more talent on offense and a new mindset on offense to really take steps forward.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Teams like WVU or Texas Tech that probably couldn’t recruit well enough to try to pound the ball to win started spreading people out and running new types of plays
Maybe bring in Mike Leach as a “wide receiver’s coach”?… (I jest)
While I am no fan of Mike Leach, he was innovative and had creativity. While it is highly questionable his offensive schemes are feasible in the NFL, the passing attacks he engineered at Texas Tech were incredibly potent – gave even the best defenses of the Big 12 fits. The way he developed his receiver corps was remarkable.
(excerpt from a nytimes.com article):
“Some go wide, some go deep, some come across the middle. All are fast. (When Leach recruits high-school players, he is forced to compromise on most talents, but he insists on speed.) All have been conditioned to run much more than a football player normally does. A typical N.F.L. receiver in training might run 1,500 yards of sprints a day; Texas Tech receivers run 2,500 yards. To prepare his receivers’ ankles and knees for the unusual punishment of his nonstop-running offense, Leach has installed a 40-yard-long sand pit on his practice field; slogging through the sand, he says, strengthens the receivers’ joints. And when they finish sprinting, they move to Leach’s tennis-ball bazookas. A year of catching tiny fuzzy balls fired at their chests at 60 m.p.h. has turned many young men who got to Texas Tech with hands of stone into glue-fingered receivers.”
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 30, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think that offense works in the NFL. The passing concepts are all good but the overall philosophy on offense I don’t think would work because the defensive talent is just too good (super wide splits, throwing on almost every down, all shotgun, etc.) and defenses have too much time to prepare.
In college, you are one of 100+ teams and every week teams have a limited amount of practice time to prep for you so doing something odd gives you more of an advantage. I do like coaches that try odd things in practice, though.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The coaches make no effective adjustments during the game.
The other team completely outcoaches them from the first quarter on.
I am reminded of an anecdote…I do not remember the names of those involved, or where I read about it, so I apologize for that: (discussing why people used to believe the world was flat) “well, it does look like the sun moves while the earth stand still.” “What would it look like if the Sun rotated around the earth?”
Indeed.
You can argue that the disparity of 1st Q performance against the 4Q performance is a failure by the coaching staff to make adjustments.
OR, you could say that the coaching staff overcomes the talent disparity by careful gameplanning, and once that is exhausted, the disparity will eventually prove to much.
You don’t have to agree with me, but at least admit that a paradigm shift puts things in a very different light.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 1:12 AM EST up reply actions
*sorry, should have said, why people believed the sun revolved around the earth, not that the earth was flat. Apologies!
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 1:14 AM EST up reply actions
*what would it look like if the earth rotated around the sun.
DAMMIT I completely effed that up. I have had too much wine, apparently. Is there some way to edit posts? This is going to drive me crazy, I sound like a total idiot.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 1:17 AM EST up reply actions
Is there some way to edit posts?
Sadly, no, but don’t fret over it. You got the idea across.
And a belated welcome, BTW. Always nice to see another good active poster around here!
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2010 1:37 AM EST up reply actions
/facepalm
I am really going to rue this lack of editability, I can already tell.
Thank you, I’m glad I finally decided to contribute instead of just sponging up your (collective) wisdom.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 2:22 AM EST up reply actions
It is a bit frustrating at times not to be able to edit a post in a thread.
I guess maybe the SBN powers that be look at it like editing a poll – you can’t change the question or the answers otherwise you can effectively “revise history”… (i.e. I could say "I’ve said on multiple occasions blah blah blah, and presto, I can prove it! ;)
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2010 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
The Browns rank 31st in scoring, outscoring only Carolina. That’s an indictment of both Mangini and Daboll.
On defense, the Browns rank 7th in points scored against. 5 of the 6 teams ahead of them have 4 or fewer losses.
From that perspective, the Browns defense is adequate. The only way the offense helps them is that they waste so much time on offense, the other teams don’t get as many shots at the ball. The Ravens had only 9 real possessions yesterday, not counting the 3 seconds at the end of the first half.
So Mangini gets blame for the Offense struggling (he was never an offensive coach) yet gets 0 credit for us having a top 10 D in terms of points allowed?
Not to mention the fact that when you look at the teams above us in scoring D we have played most of them (Baltimore, Pitt, New Orleans, Atlanta) and we have also played the 2 teams tied for 9th, the 11th, 12th, and 13th.
Thats insane. We have had 5 games so far (with a 6th coming next week) against top 6 scoring Ds. Then you add in the others and thats 11 of our games against teams with scoring D’s in the top half 13 of the league.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 27, 2010 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
On defense, the Browns rank 7th in points scored against. 5 of the 6 teams ahead of them have 4 or fewer losses.
From that perspective, the Browns defense is adequate.
that is a ridiculous statement. a D is ranked top 10 in the league in scoring (oh and by the way, also top 5 in takeaways) and they are merely “adequate”? that is ridiculous.
How it is an indictment of mangini, a defensive guy when we can’t score but no one praises mangini (it all goes to Ryan) when the D is awesome?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Defense has been excellent, but they have given up some bonehead plays at the end of games. I think they just need more rotation.
Depth, Depth, Depth. Right now we have 3 LBs on IR (DJack, Maiava, Fujita) and nothing of value behind any of them… unless you think Trusnik and Titus Brown are going to be great.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
unless you think Trusnik and Titus Brown are going to be great.
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
by Kimble_79 on Dec 28, 2010 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
I forgot about Maiava too. He may not be amazing, but he is very solid depth at ILB and outside of him, we have nothing. I think our best ILB might actually be titus brown (trusnik may be better as an overall LB, but he is a ILB/OLB).
Even though I don’t know how much he has left in the tank, at this point I wouldn’t mind resigning DJack. For a while, I thought it wouldn’t be worth the $ considering his health, but we desperately need help in the middle.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Maiava has a high ceiling IMO. He was just overshadowed at USC by the bigger names. When he was on the field last year he seemed to make plays.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
I agree. he is a very nice player who could become a starter. Hopefully he gains some weight, because 6’0’’ 229 is quite small for an ILB in a 3-4. That is almost Will LB size.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I dont remember what exactly his injury was this year, but im sure he is in the weight room. I swear that draft last year isnt as bad as some would make it out to be.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
Some 3-4 teams call a LB a “Will” and 4-3 Will LBs come in all shapes, sizes, and athletic abilities.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
yes. I believe one of the rush LBs in a 3-4 is a Will.
Will LBs do come in all shapes and sizes. However many of them tend to be a bit smaller and faster than their Sam and Mike counterparts.
This is what I meant by Will LB size. Maiava is quick and good in coverage, but undersized to play ILB in a 3-4 and probably a bit undersized to play in the middle or strong-side.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
He is just undersized as an NFL linebacker.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Will, Mike, Sam, and… I want to say Bob but I can’t remember the fourth. I think Spur is for a 5-2 set, so it’s not that.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 30, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
I have heard the 4th LB in a 3-4 called the “Jack” LB. Then again, like Rufio said, there are all different kinds of names that different schemes give.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Kaluka Bazooka, get it right, gawd!
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 28, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
definitely. I am assuming by more rotation you are referring to more depth to plug in because I agree. they are working hard but seem to be tiring out sometimes.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I think those two sets of numbers have something to do with one another. Obviously, we need to score more, but we are just playing some low-scoring games compared to the rest of the league.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Indeed. I realize it may not be “sexy”, but I actually enjoy watching defense-dominated games. This may be because I used to play defense, but regardless, I love it. Miami game—yeah, loved it. Sorry every game can’t be exciting (for the offense-oriented fans).
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 1:23 AM EST up reply actions
If Mangini leaves after this season, he will leave the Browns with the worst coaching record of any coach (of 2 season or more) except for Palmer, who coached the first 2 years of the expansion Browns.
- out of 12 such coaches — (Davis was .414 and Crennel .375).
Crennel’s second year was a major fluke, can’t count.
ROHC THE SOHC.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 27, 2010 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
Crennel won 4 games in his second year.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 27, 2010 11:03 PM EST up reply actions
Does this factor in the win vs. the Steelers next week?!?
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
by Simmsinns on Dec 27, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
This kind of “win-losses” analysis, which completely ignores all other factors, is just the kind of reactionary nonsense that makes my BP rise. How anyone can watch our Brownies today, and have watched the Crennel-lead Browns in 08, and pretend Crennel is the better coach—well it makes me question my faith in humanity. The culture of losing has been steadily reinforced here since 1999, and if you think we’re one head coaching change away from being a dynasty, well…I want some of what you’re smoking. C’mon, Palcal, I’m sure you can offer more insight than that. I don’t question your loyalty to our team, I just think you need to give it some more thought.
by Combat Medic on Dec 28, 2010 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
very well said. I think the biggest issue is that some people truly want to believe that its all on the coaching. Bad drafting/luck has put this franchise back quite a bit. We sign an all pro FA Center only to have him crippled before he takes a snap with a team.
We draft a top level TE only to have him get hurt on a ST play and then go brain dead and attempt an idiotic stunt on a motorcycle.
We reach for a QB who everyone else was passing on AND give up the next years 1st round pick to get him.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but we have made some horrible decisions since returning to the league in 1999. We took a potentially great QB and wrecked him behind 0 Oline and no talent (Couch). We flip flop coaches and QB’s like they are a piece of Fruit Stripe gum, lose their flavor after about 10 games.
I hate bringing up the Steelers as an example but you never see them panicking with head coaching moves. Its why they consistently are in the top 10 of the league and why we are in the top 10 of the draft.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 8:37 AM EST up reply actions
I think everyone wants coaching stability, I’m just not sure if everyone thinks Mangini is the right guy to be the coach for the next 10 years. Do you really want to go through a decade of marginal? A lot of people, including myself don’t see Mangini as elite, but if I’m wrong, I will be more happy than anyone to admit it. I think the main thing is having FO stability and sold drafts like the last one (also drafting and aquiring guys who love football, not guys who wish they were basketball players).
You do realize that he basically built that NYJ roster right? And Ryan (who lots of folks think is a great coach) and took the exact same roster to the exact same record. It just so happened that 9-7 got them a playoff spot (ass backwards heading in btw).
I dont get what Mangini did that frustrated so many fans to want to fire him after 1 season in which he overachieved at the end and another season in which the team actually competed week in and week out.
Did he trade talented players? Yup, and both players we got rid of I agreed with the move. Winslow wanted to get paid like the best TE in the NFL and he didnt deserve it. Edwards was a cancer with more ego then talent.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
I hate bringing up the Steelers as an example but you never see them panicking with head coaching moves. Its why they consistently are in the top 10 of the league and why we are in the top 10 of the draft.
I think the reasoning for this is FO inconsistency more than the coaching carousel. Probably a bit of both though. The FO is in place now and talent should start oozing its way onto this team. Can Mangini turn it around and make something of it is another question. I’m not sure his philosophy (or style of play if you will) is going to sit well with Mike Holmgren much longer if we end up 5-11 again.
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
Holmgren has said he isnt looking solely at W/L’s. If you look at the body of work are the Browns better this season then last season? I think when you take into account the brutality of our schedule, the injuries to many key players and positions, and the fact that most of our losses hinged on high turnover amounts which to me is more on the players execution then on anything Mangini can do, the answer is YES we are.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you defensively. Offensively though we are 30th in PPG, 29th in YD/G, and 30th in PassingYD/Game, and 19th in RushingYD/Game.
When I think of Holmgren, I think of an offensively minded person. Mangini is not turning the offense around and neither is Daboll. We can always point towards the talent on the team as Mangini’s saviour, but it only holds up for so long.
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
Defensively we are 7th in PPG, 21st in YD/Game, 13th in PassingYD/Game, and 26th in RushingYD/Game. That is impressive compared with what we were last year. However, we need someone to do the same thing to our offense. Can Mangini do that is the question that I don’t know the answer to? I hope Mike does.
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
I dont think he can on his own. As I said to your comment in the other thread I think he needs a good OC. A vet OC who runs a similar style of offense (which has quickly become very WCO looking.)
Daboll is too inexperienced to hold that job any longer, and I think it could come down to his job or Mangini’s.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
you are right about the steelers. whe Noll came in, there was a lack of talent like here and he didn’t have immediate success. However, his teams got steadily better and in his 4th year, the team became great. The team looked better overall every year and that is what I see happening here. this team is not talented, but they made significant improvements on last year. they made significant improvements in the last half of last year. Now I don’t think mangini will be Noll, but the team is progressing satisfactorily.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I learned alot about Noll in high school as he was a coach at the school (Benedictine). I have said it all season, while we may be losing again this year the losses feel different. I feel we are 1-2 plays out of winning 10-12 games which is remarkable.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
yes. the fact that we are within games amazes me. We have been in games that last year, I would have thought we had no business in being competitive in. I think the fact that we had a couple amazing wins and the fact that we were within every game raised people’s expectations and the losses might be feeling so much worse because they are close.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
could be. And whats crazy is its not like the teams we lost to havent pushed the upper tier teams as well.
Buffalo gave Pitt, NE, Baltimore, and the Bears scares this year.
Cincy beat Baltimore and have played relatively close games much like us against good teams. Losing by 7 or less to Tampa, Atlanta, Indy, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
a Delhomme [a·del·homme·] -noun
1. an interception that is returned for a touchdown
2. a useless, drive killing checkdown pass
by Simmsinns on Dec 27, 2010 8:47 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Bloody brilliant.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 28, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Not having read the rest, and am not going to, regarding the headline :
“Instant Recap: McCoy’s Rough Day
Costs Cleveland”…
…“Forget all about it! Forget all about it! Forget all about it! Forget all about it! Get it here! Forget all about it! Forget all about it!…”
by mooncamping on Dec 28, 2010 6:29 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I already have Moon. I’m looking forward to 3 TD’s next Sunday from Colt.
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 28, 2010 8:13 AM EST up reply actions
Good comment from Mangini's presser yesterday
(On if he would have handled the last two minutes of the first half any differently)- "The goal there is to have three chances to run three plays before we kick the field goal on fourth down, and I thought we were going to have that. We ended up with six seconds at the end there and to run that additional play you really are looking for seven or eight seconds, so I was off by a couple seconds. You definitely want that extra down to do that. You don’t want to kick it on third down, and I thought we were going to have that, I just was wrong."
by Justin Kowalczyk on Dec 28, 2010 9:12 AM EST reply actions
I’m glad he can admit he was wrong, the question is will he change his methodology next time, or just think this was a one-off mistake?
“…so I was off by a couple seconds. …”
This doesn’t exactly sound like a sincere admission – sounds like he is qualifying his ‘admission of wrongdoing’. In my opinion the last drive of the first half was a gross mis-management of the timeouts and the clock, and he should own up to it.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. -- Vince Lombardi
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 29, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
I think the clock management thing is blown way out of proportion. Yeah he burned a little more time than he should have and it cost us one attempt at throwing into the endzone, but it’s not like that one decision cost us the whole game. You can speculate any way you want about “Oh, we wouldn’t have gone for the onside.”, or “We would have had a different feeling going into the half.” but in the end that’s all it is: speculation. The fact is he was only off by a couple of seconds.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 29, 2010 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
And even that was because of two broken down plays where Colt could have thrown away the ball to preserve time rather than take longer to try to make a play.
his pick sexes put us over the top
by North Coast Flea on Dec 29, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
It could have been more than a few seconds — had we gotten a first down then we could have had more shots at the end zone. But the larger point is that the clock management at the end of the half is indicative of poor game management by Mangini and certainly something that Holmgren is taking in to consideration when deciding his fate.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 29, 2010 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
And if we had gotten into the endzone we’d all be singing his praises for not giving the Ravens the ball back with enough time to score. The lack of execution from our O and the good play by their D makes it seem worse than it is. He tried to play it smart/safe and burned a few too many seconds. Ideally he would have called a TO between 20-30 secs left rather than 17 but a matter of 13 seconds isn’t a fire-able offense imo. The fact about Mangini is that I don’t see anyone out there that makes me say “Wow, I wish he was our coach!”, I’d like for him to have one more season to see if he can reap the benefits of what he’s built so far, especially with Heckert doing the drafting. I wouldn’t mind an OC change though, maybe someone who’s worked with Holmgren before. Maybe Gil Haskell? isn’t he already on our payroll as a consultant or something?
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 30, 2010 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
/end rant
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 30, 2010 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
No, I was screaming at the TV to call a timeout with 1:20 left (or whatever it was when we got the first down and let the clock run for 40 seconds before snapping the ball). It was poor game management no matter what happened afterwards, and there is no other way to spin it. If we had a veteran QB and a better offense where we had faith in them to make plays and know what to do in that situation then it might be different, but with a rookie QB and an offense that struggles to pass then we should give them as many opportunities to score as possible. And we should have faith in our defense to be able to stop them for 30 seconds if we did score. As Bernie said, it was coaching scared and not smart.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 30, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
So if we call a TO at 1:20 and the passing stalls we have effectively only burned out about 20 seconds off the remainder of the clock leaving the Ravens with two time outs and a full minute left to score. You guys can call it playing scared if you want but I call it playing the game like chess instead of “Hulk smash, me score” type of football. In the end it’s tomatoes tomahtoes and we aren’t going to see eye to eye on this one.
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 30, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
But with two more TO’s and 1:20 left the plays don’t have to be passes. You still have a credible rushing threat, and that also gives some viability to play-action. Chess indeed.
I am effing hurdling you and you can't stop me.
Hillis was already injured at that point. Bell was playing decently but I’m sure this played into the mind of Mangini.
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 31, 2010 12:25 AM EST up reply actions
We could have had several more plays since there was space for a first down and we would have had more options besides Colt having to throw to the end zone on both attempts.
I don’t mind the running the clock down strategy but your primary goal should be to score a TD first. Mangini’s flaw isn’t bad clock management – its sometimes overthinking every scenario.
IF we get the 1st, which a lot of people seem to be assuming.
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 30, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
We still kicked a FG on 3rd down with at least one timeout—and it wasn’t because we couldn’t move the ball. At the very least we should have had the extra two seconds to run a play there, even Mangini admitted that was on him.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
That’s what I had said up above. Ideally he would have stopped the clock around 30 seconds instead of 17 to give our rookie QB a little more time to shoot for the end zone. As far as moving the ball goes, it gets harder as the field gets shorter and we were playing one of the best Ds in the NFL, moving the ball there isn’t a guarantee.
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 30, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
yep. and it seemed like the coaching staff wanted to take shots at the end zone rather than go for a 1st down.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
That’s because they didn’t have time to do anything else.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 30, 2010 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
