Browns Game Changing Offseason Moves: The Mike Holmgren Show
by Chris Pokorny on Jun 30, 2010 9:43 PM EDT
in General News
73 comments
Sponsored Post: This post is presented by Sprint. Bringing you the first wireless 4G network from a national carrier. Only on the Now Network.
This is the sixth and final edition of our series highlighting game-changing moves that have occurred since the end of last season. The first one was about keeping KR Joshua Cribbs a member of the Browns; the second one was about the new look to the secondary this year; the third one was about the removal of quarterbacks Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson; the fourth one was about the Browns allowing head coach Eric Mangini to stay in charge for another season; and the fifth one was about the addition of TE Ben Watson to the roster.
For last, I've saved what I consider to be an obvious choice: Mike Holmgren becoming the president of the Cleveland Browns.
Game-Changing Offseason Move #6: Mike Holmgren Takes Control of the Organization
Although Holmgren was named team president with a couple of games remaining last season, he didn't really begin his actual work until after the season, so for all intents and purposes, it should be counted as an offseason move.
I saved the Holmgren piece for last because he has played a major role in shaping the make-up of the Cleveland Browns. In fact, Holmgren had a direct influence or impact on at least three of our game-changing offseason moves:
- Maybe things would have worked out under any new front office, but keeping Joshua Cribbs as a member of the Browns tested Holmgren from Day 1. After Dawn Aponte's ridiculous "take it or leave it offer" to Cribbs, Holmgren didn't overreact. He made it clear that he would take a careful look at the situation after a general manager was hired. Sure enough, after Tom Heckert came on board, the Cribbs situation went from "I'll never play a down again for the Browns" to seeing Aponte transferred and negotiations progressing smoothly. Not long after, Cribbs had a new deal in place and the team now has plans for him to be actively involved in the offense.
- The removal of quarterbacks Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn was another decision that Holmgren had to make. It was one of the first things Holmgren wanted to address, as he referred to the final decision on a quarterback being "the most important decision on a football team." I originally wanted to give Quinn another shot, but as it stands now, I'm already over the fact that we traded him to the Denver Broncos.
Jake Delhomme isn't going to sell tickets, but he's a fresh face to the team who Holmgren was willing to give another shot to when other teams weren't willing to. In the mean time, we can take time in developing a quarterback like Colt McCoy. Under Holmgren, there is no quarterback controversy either. If another front office had been here, we might be talking about Quinn vs. Anderson, Quinn vs. McCoy, or some other wacky quarterback competition this camp. - By allowing head coach Eric Mangini to stay in charge for another season, Holmgren is recognizing the progress the team made toward the end of last season, winning four straight amidst a stretch when the Steelers and Jaguars were still competing for playoff spots. The Browns were making positive headlines for the play of the defense (i.e. sacks on Roethlisberger) and the play of the running game (Jerome Harrison). Many of the players who started having success (Matt Roth, Jason Trusnik) were players that fit the Mangini mold.
It would've been easy to just start over, but as a fan I appreciate the fact that last season wasn't a complete waste. Mangini has appeared to accept his new role well and seems receptive to the extra ears that he has. George Kokinis didn't do a thing, so it has gone from Mangini running the ship to having guys like Holmgren, Heckert, and Gil Haskell having their say as well. Besides being grateful to retain the head coaching job, I think Mangini has appreciated the respect that they have shown him by not trying to change the way he wants to coach the team -- he was allowed to keep his offensive and defensive coordinators and assistant coaches to maintain continuity heading into year two.
Holmgren might be the "czar" or captain of the ship, but he has delegated responsibilities to the right people, knowing that he's the "team president" and not the "head coach." Our situation is much better than cherry picking a member of the Ravens' organization with no credible general manager experience.
The Browns have made some pretty solid offseason moves to upgrade a few of our positions too.
- Take a look at LB Scott Fujita, who comes over from the Super Bowl winning New Orleans Saints. He might not be an All-Pro player, but he knows how to be a leader of the linebacker unit and is also involved with the community and the player's association.
- Ben Watson, featured in our last game-changing piece, offers the pass-catching threat at tight end that the team didn't have last year.
- Tony Pashos, while not a major upgrade, should be noticeably better than John St. Clair at right tackle.
- Sheldon Brown and Joe Haden add a million times more depth to the cornerback position.
The only position that might have taken a hit is at safety since we fell short of drafting Eric Berry and lost starter Brodney Pool. Pool wasn't close to being a dominant safety though, so there's probably not a big dropoff in taking a chance on two rookies to compete for his role.
Holmgren has a calming presence about him, and for the first time since returning to the league it seems like we actually have people in the front office with experience. Holmgren might not be on the sidelines yelling at players on Sundays, but the decisions he has made since taking over have no doubt been or have led to game-changing offseason moves.
1 recs |
73 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
ummm……
It’s not a lie if you believe it.
by Brownie's Year on Jul 1, 2010 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Holmgren’s presence was more game-changing than anyone else, so I imagine you must disagree with one of the other pieces in hindsight? My debate for using Fujita or not came when I did the article on Ben Watson, and I chose Watson because we really lacked a receiving threat last year.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 1, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel like removing my comment now, because I now share the same belief.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 1, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
COMMENT DELETE FEATURE!
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Jul 1, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I won, deal with it.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Jul 1, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I was thinking the Suisham signing deserved a post — maybe not the last one but one in the middle. Certainly a bigger deal than resigning Cribbs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Jul 1, 2010 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions
really? he pretty much only makes the team if Dawson doesn’t get a new contract.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Suisham was waived a couple weeks ago.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 2, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously, bross, when are you going to learn to recognize a joke? You take everything way too seriously.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 2, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
So is this the last time we get to see a Sprint sponsored article? I must say, I’ll miss selling out to a major label….
yeah, screw money!
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jul 1, 2010 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
mooncamping wanted tall wiry cornerbacks, Eric Wright challenged to be physical at free safety, Abe Elam rewarded for top play at strong safety. He or I rather also called for sporty versatile linebackers, we got the biggest ones out there, if they don´t run it right at them we´re lost. I also called for a clear cut tip of the hat towards a 3-4, when looking at the defensive linemen, I see a clear tendency to line up in a 4-3. I know the fans don´t get to communicate directly with the coaches and the FO, but it looks like Rob Ryan is in the driver´s seat and not Mangini.
On offense we´re also collecting players that Holmgren can unceremoniously dump at his volition and behest. Dude, Peyton Hillis and Montario Hardesty is a given. Shaun Lauvao takes any spot other than Joe Thomas´s or center. McCoy was an absolute steal in the third round, so the absolute emphasis should be on how soon can I get him firmly behind center, and not sloppy seconds from Carolina.
All in all, for mooncamping, it´s the wrong moves, and no satisfactory designations.
Once again it´s parity versus the occasional slice of heaven, seems to be the recession conformity lolligag pace for next season. It´s still a far cry from a winning mentality.
He or I rather also called…
ok, not multiple people, just multiple personalities.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jul 1, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Do the neighbors know it?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
by Villeslgr on Jul 2, 2010 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what holmgren’s purpose is in our organization. He left the draft completely up to Mangini and Heckert, and all he’s really done is bring in Heckert and Delhomme so far. It seems like he’s for the most part just the face of the franchise and makes a decision every once in a while
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 1, 2010 6:48 PM EDT reply actions
He drafted Colt McCoy — overruled both Mangini and Heckert on that one apparently.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Jul 1, 2010 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
He runs shit.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jul 1, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I hope that’s his job description.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jul 2, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Holmgren is there to be the boss.
If Mangini or Heckert don’t like the direction the organization is headed in, they talk to him instead of battling for power amongst themselves. Coaches and the FO can’t come to a consensus, he makes the decision. Someone needs to be hired, run it through Holmgren. He gets veto power on all the roster moves, I’m guessing. He’ll hire coaches and GMs if we need them.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
He is much like what a President does. Largely over popularized, rarely does he make huge decisions in shorts amount of time, as in succession of one another. He’s there to be a face for the power, tie – breaker and overall peace keeper. He has the power, everyone knows it, but he’s a lassiez – faire type of football president. He lets the other part of the brain trust do the work and stays hands off until something he really wants pops up or has to keep the peace. It’s a beautiful, calm system with actual checks and balances.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Jul 1, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I like this system, and would not be surprised to see other teams adopting it, given the frequency with which coaches and GMs clash.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jul 2, 2010 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
and does that mean he can’t have an impact on the franchise? you are giving too little credit to
a) bringing in the right people
b) the influence a solid and stable face of the franchise can bring (in the locker room and in the league)
c) he makes a decision when he feels necessary…he delegates to others (like heckert) when he knows they will make the right one.
d) he is also here to eliminate the problems we have had with Coach vs. GM. Kokinis supposedly was overruled a lot by Mangini. Phil had much more control than Romeo…Butch Davis controlled both roles terribly. We have not had any sort of harmony between the Coach and GM and instead of incessant bickering between the 2 of them, holmgren will almost be like the mediator so they can work as a team instead of butting heads. this is one of the things that has played a major role in the browns failures since they have come back, and it looks like holmgren can provide some stability there.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I don’t think I’m giving him too little credit at all. I’m just trying to analyze how much of an impact he could make realistically. I see many people using the phrase in holmgren we trust, but how can I depend on him to turn the franchise around when he’s not truly doing much behind the scenes that affects the team directly? It doesn’t seem like he’s the one creating the plan, drafting the players, making the decisions, or implementing his style. It’s kinda like he’s just there to baby sit the personnel and be the “face” of the franchise.
So if that’s the case, I’m not putting any faith in him turning the team around because if it does, it doesn’t seem like Holmgren will be the cause of that.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 2, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Ever heard the phrase “The buck stops here”? That’s basically his job is to have the final say on important team decisions. I’ll add that he’s the one who hired the GM who is doing our drafting now, whom happens to share the same philosophies. To say he doesn’t effect the drafting of players, decision making, etc. is a fallacy.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Jul 2, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
he’s not truly doing much behind the scenes that affects the team directly
Simply by being the man in charge, he affects the team directly.
He is creating the plan, which is to win as a united front office where the GM and FO help the coaches and vice versa. Everyone has a job, everyone does their job. Holmgren disagrees with the way you’ve done your job, he overrules you. Or he fires you. Everything goes through him. Sure, the coaches are coaching, but if they aren’t living up to Holmgren’s standards, they’re gone.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I don’t see that as effecting the team directly. The coaches are going to do their job, and exactly the same thing whether Holmgren is there or not. Okay so if the coaches are doing a good job, he’ll do or say nothing. if they’re sucking, Holmgren will do/say something. I understand the necessity of his position on a team with little structure and leadership in the front office. But regardless I don’t think his presence will have anything to do with this team turning around, when essential the only time he is needed is when someone isn’t doing their job which is failure in itself
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 3, 2010 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Any time he does not fire someone, it’s a tacit approval of them.
Mangini can feel confident knowing a guy like Holmgren is backing him, double checking his work, and seeing things he probably isn’t.
Players know Holmgren is backing Mangini, they have to buy in. Players trust the coach, they play hard, they play according to the philosophies and the demands of the coaches. They know they have to pay attention in film sessions. They know they had better be taking advantage of their opportunities. They know that they are doing everything for a reason and that what they are doing is approved by someone who knows how to win the Super Bowl.
Firing/demoting Browns legends all of a sudden is a non-issue when last year under Mangini it would have been a media uproar. “Opportunity sessions” will now be viewed as a positive thing because of Holmgren instead of something people use to demonize Mangini—a place where full contact supposedly happens without pads. All of the things that Mangini has done out of a winning attitude can now be seen as positive, competitive, and tough instead of mean and awkward by players and the media.
Think of it this way; because I made this argument and pointed it out, you probably won’t listen to me and you’ll probably think I am full of crap. You will look for a way to deny what I am saying, despite my making sense. Now, if Jim Tressell or Sean Peyton or Bill Parcells or someone you respected all of a sudden started posting here and agreeing with what I said, you might reconsider. All of a sudden, what i said would have more credibility to someone who isn’t necessarily beaming with optimism.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Once again i understand all of that, but the fact still remains that best case scenario is that he doesn’t do anything. You said it yourself, players are buying into Mangini’s plan, and holmgren is just over-seeing it.
So since you’re in college, imagine during your junior year the dean was replace with a department manager who checks over the lesson plans of the professors. Do you attribute the knowledge you’ve acquired to your degree to that manager or to the professors who’ve taught you what you know. If you end up being the valedictorian, is it because the manager was watching over the professors shoulder?
Like I said, I understand why he’s there, and i understand the importance. But if Robiske ends up being the next Andre Johnson next year, and delhomme reverts back to his 2005 form, and the offense can manage double digits this year; it won’t be because Holmgren.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 4, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
At this point, your analogy doesn’t really fit my academic setting, but I’ll go along.
If I have reason to believe my teachers are wrong about something, I don’t believe what they say unless they can prove it to me.
If that dean or department manager or higher-up or whatever has the respect of his/her colleagues, displays intelligence, and has presided over a successful program at his/her previous job, it would mean a lot if they stood behind my teachers and their curriculum.
I could trust that I am not doing stupid, mindless assignments but am doing things that will help my career.
I would never expect a dean to be as hands-on as Holmgren, nor to have the power he does. But if all of my teachers were expected to know exactly what I wasn’t doing well and exactly how to correct it or they would be fired, I would have to trust them.
Coaches aren’t responsible for winning the genetic lottery for their players (i.e. Robi becoming Johnson), they are expected to put their players in the best position to win and to use the talent they have to its fullest potential. they could do everything right and Delhomme could still play like DA. If Robiskie breaks out, it will be partly because he had two years in the same system (thanks to Holmgren). If Delhomme plays well, it will be because he found someone he believes in who was willing to give him a chance (Holmgren).
Club presidents aren’t supposed to coach, they are supposed to make sure the coaches and FO they have are good, to find replacements if necessary, to make sure everyone in the organization is on the same page, to make final decisions, and to make sure no one tries to create a power struggle. Holmgren actively did something when he kept Mangini and his staff.
Without the stability at the top, nothing below it can happen continuously and smoothly. If the dean doesn’t do his/her job the teacher can’t do his/hers. Then I can’t learn.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I imagine from this conversation that you have not worked very long in the real world? The man in charge of any institution or organization reviews everything that is a product of his company. His job is to get the right people hired in that can adamantly do a certain function at the highest of quality. He (or she for that matter…sorry ladies) also reviews organization decisions and looks over everybody’s work to see that it is up to par with what it should be. A person in charge should also be very good at being motivational towards ALL employees, not only his “shift managers” (shift managers being Heckert, Mangini, ect…while all employees being players, ball boy, ect..). To think that Holmgren has no impact on the organizations decisions and that he is just babysitting is ridiculous! These are a managers responsibilities to their organization. While some are not good managers and don’t follow all the above, the responsibilities do not change whether we are talking a NFL football team or a department store or a bank. Think about that for a second before you say he doesn’t do anything.
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths --- Steven Wright
people using the phrase “in holmgren we trust” may be giving him too much credit in fact for my taste…especially considering how early it is.
a) he is creating the plan and he has as much (if not more) of a say in the whole plan as kokinis or mangini.
b) he doesn’t draft the players but he definitely does have input and when he feels he needs to, he pulls the trigger like with McCoy. Just because he doesn’t directly call in the names for each draft pick doesn’t mean he has no say or they are not drafting to his liking…
c) who is to know what decisions he is exactly makes and what decisions others make. He made the major decisions of Coach, GM, and bringing in Haskell. Ditto what NCF said about “the buck stops here” phrase. He has his finger on the button of most major decisions, it is just someone else who is suggesting these decisions (like heckert) but holmgren is the man with his finger on the button
d) yeah, he is not implementing his style, but is bringing in an OC who worked under him to coach up our OC. he also brought in a GM who drafted with a protege of his and knows in general, through that protege, his style. he doesn’t have to directly implement his style to implement his style, he is bringing in guys to do that.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
How can it be Holmgren when it was not an off-season move (you point out that technicality) and he will not be on the field during game-time?
I still stand by Scott Fujita as an off-season game-changing move- no sarcasm intended. What we will see from our LBs this season compared to what we have seen in the past several years will be remarkable.
Holmgren is a huge uber-move; it is bigger than game-changing. It is season-changing. It is organization-changing. It is historic in the landscape of current Cleveland sports.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jul 1, 2010 9:19 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Holmgren was easily the biggest addition this off-season.
Remember this team before he got here. We had a GM/Head Coach duo that didn’t talk. We had, without a doubt, the most dysfunctional front office in the NFL. Holmgren walked in and settled the ship.
I may not like all the moves that have been made under him, but without a doubt this franchise has been moving in one direction as A TEAM. That easily makes him the best choice.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jul 1, 2010 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions
My quibble is with the series title and theme. I agree that Holmgren is a huge move – the biggest organizational move since 1999. It was not an off-season move and it will not be game-changing. The previous 5 parts addressed decision directly affecting on-the-field gametime moves – players and coaches.
If we want to include front-office personnel and actions, then the truly significant event rests with Randy Lerner acting quickly and decisively to hire the right person. He had one last shot to get it right and he nailed it. I’m still amazed he convinced Holmgren to take the job, and somehow the triumvirate is working well together. Maybe this Lerner guy knows a thing or two about leading an organization…
In the end, the series highlighted 3 moves that will be seen as changes from last season “directly on the field” during a game (TE, secondary, and QB). I would have liked more discussion about these types of “new” moves rather than focusing on 3 pieces that were in place at the end of last season.
That’s just my opinion. I don’t disagree with the importance of Holmgren. I just think there are other things that happened in the off-season that will have more apparent differences on the field, like at LB (or RB). And to anyone who wants to dismiss the current LB situation, what have you been watching the past 10 years? To achieve even average or mediocre status is a huge upgrade from years past. Huge! Our best LB from the start of last season (DQ) is a back up now.
In the end, I think this team has improved and will be competitive this season (7 to 9 wins), and there are specific moves (RB, LB, OL, TE, DB, and QB) that will contribute to that level of play
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jul 2, 2010 8:46 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Lerner gave Holmgren exactly what he wanted: the ability to “fix” something, enough time to be with his family like a normal person and not an NFL coach working 20 hour days, and boatloads of cash. He also knows how to run a football organization: hire football people and stay the hell out of the way.
Our LBs have been as good as “average” since 1999 and I don’t expect us to be much better than that this year. I am curious to see how this year’s unit will do because I see a lot of OK ILBs, and one guy who can rush the passer.
I am hoping that doesn’t mean we send Roth and the DL after the QB and then play soft Cover-3 behind it (aka the Romeo defense), but I have more faith in Rob than that.
Although I am guessing the title of this series is something that the sponsor wanted and agree that it doesn’t totally make sense, Holmgren’s presence will probably have a direct impact on the field next year. For starters, he allows Mangini to just coach. Secondly, even though we won’t be running a “West Coast” offense, Daboll will still learn some things from Gil Haskell and Holmgren. Lastly, it should be very easy for any player to buy in to what the coach and organization are doing because Holmgren stands behind everything we do.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Thank you for the consideration and response. I hadn’t thought about the sponsorship angle, and how Sprint probably dictated the title.
Lerner may have offered Holmgren a luxurious offer; but I was very surprised (and I think most people were surprised) that Holmgren agreed to the offer last November. Wasn’t the consensus thinking that Holmgren would wait until the end of the season and have his pick of teams?
For the LBs, the 2010 unit does not have any Pro Bowlers nor any guys who will frighten offenses as Wimbley or Jamir Miller may have done. As a unit I see more interchangeable parts and players who will not be whiffing on tackles and play in their proper position. The coaching will know how to use the players, too.
The last point regarding on-field activities is spot on. I think you are right – we will see Holmgren’s influence through Daboll and Haskell. This “North Coast” offense could be very fun to watch, and it would not be happening without Holmgren in charge (bringing in Haskell and keeping Daboll/Mangini).
Player buy-in is another great point – there should not be a player on this team wondering if this team is in good hands. Confidence in the leadership will be extremely valuable.
I still stand by my initial critique – I’m at a loss for the logical theorem or axiom to describe it; but it goes something like this: “If not for Holmgren, then none of the other five events would have occurred. So, how can we differentiate between the other five events and Holmgren?” Another way to put it: the 6-part series addressed five elements that would not have happened without Holmgren joining the team and the sixth event is Holmgren, himself, joining the team. I’m at a loss for how to address this dependency.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
Holmgren easily offered up that he wanted a fixer-upper. I think it was more surprising that he ended up returning to the game than that he picked us. Who wanting to work for a struggling franchise wouldn’t want to work for the Browns? Owner willing to spend, city who loves the team, struggling for 10+ years.
The problem with having interchangeable parts at LB is that none of them are really great at several things and unlike a 4-3, we will need the LBs to accomplish many tasks as a group on every play. It would be great if we had guys who were interchangeable because they could all rush the passer, cover TEs and backs, set the edge, and chase people down and make tackles. I guess I just see our guys as mostly tacklers with Gocong and Roth able to rush and DQ and maybe Fujita being able to cover. They should all be smart and tough, which is great and also important. I just don’t see the versatility that we’ll need to dominate.
Football is a dizzying sea of cause and effect, and I don’t think it is fair to say X player wouldn’t have come here unless we had Holmgren. And really, there is no need to differentiate between this and the other five “game changing” elements. I think Chris is simply predicting things that will make a positive difference for our franchise in the future.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I understand where you’re coming from, I had the same issues when putting Holmgren on the list because it’s like a self-referential relationship. The pretitle itself was dictated by Sprint, so I tried to take the angle of this: pick six topics that people can look at and say, “our team would be headed in a different direction had these things not happened.” Holmgren was hired last season, but the impact itself didn’t really take effect until the offseason in January.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 2, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
how is it not offseason? It all depends on when you define a teams “offseason” to begin? does it begin with the start of Free Agency? Does it begin when the Pro Bowl (or super bowl) is over? Does it begin when a team has played their last game. All of these are legitimate starts to the “offseason” and each one has been defined as such. i tend to see the “offseason” as any time that isn’t tha “season”. the browns season ended in week 17…so personnel moves after that I consider “offseason”. maybe you define “offseason” a different way, but that would be arguing semantics over a word without a true set meaning.
Much of holmgren’s effect on and off the field are implicit. They are things like changing the layout of power, establishing a focused culture and plan, and being the face of the franchise. These things sometimes go unnoticed but they are often key to righting a ship that has no direction, purpose, or goal.
Holmgren had a direct hand in hand-picking the front office personnel that is running the show. he also has a significant say in who stays and who goes. He might not go on the field and make plays, but he is more of a game changer than anyone mentioned without having to…That is the whole concept and goal of the position that holmgren has in the organization.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Our LB core is still average.
And your conclusion had nothing to do with your introductory sentence. I give you a D for effort, but terrible body structure and overall thesis. If you ramble, make sure the ending and beginning actually say the same thing basically. You denounce Holmgren then praise him. It made my head hurt.
- Grammar lesson for the day.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Jul 1, 2010 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Mangini, for as much maligned as he may have been at mid-season, brought some stability/focus to the Browns vision. Holmgren at least allows Mangini to focus even more, but also brings that to the rest of the Cleveland organization.
In spite of the winning streak at season’s end, I don’t necessarily see the Browns improving all that much this season (although I also wouldn’t be surprised). Maybe it’s a lack of faith in Delhomme. Or a feeling that last year’s end was just lightning in a bottle. But, with Colt here (and, keep in mind, I DON’T want to rush him), Holmgren in charge of the direction, and another year under the Mangini system, I don’t see it as a huge leap of faith that in 2 years, the Browns can be ready for serious competition for the division. (It doesn’t hurt that the Steelers are getting unlucky and (some folks anyway) stupid at the same time.)
Holmgren is important for one reason perhaps more than any other:
He is a guy who is big enough and established enough to make tough moves like removing Jim Brown and retaining Eric Mangini without the media tearing him apart and everyone second guessing him every step of the way. He can say “Look I’ve got the experience, I’m proven; Get out of the way and I’ll show you how its done.”
"Smokescreen."
yeah, imagine the shit-storm if mangini had fired Brown.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jul 2, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I believe Brown was demoted, not fired. But then again I could be wrong.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Jul 2, 2010 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
He was fired.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Jul 3, 2010 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Here is what Mike Holmgren does. He does his own player evaluations. That´s a positive. But then he´ll get players he never intends to start, to make the final cut more obvious. To him it´s a mixture of benching valuable talents, and entertaining lesser talents.
Here is what Mike Mangini does, if he can. He assembles undeniable talent, and hopes everyone will realize, and thus make the decision to start them for him, merely complying in the end. The other players aren´t half bad, but nothing to call home about. If the coordinators use the wrong ones, it´s not on him, firmly aligning himself with other evaluators who are slighted in the NFL. He´s still waiting for his ideal authoritative situation to come along.
Together Holmgren and Mangini can assemble some talent. But Mangini lacks assertiveness and Holmgren is coy about not using authority. I think Mangini is focused on getting out with his reputation intact, and Holmgren is focused on people realizing that he´s the better coach.
All in all, it´s not an honest predicament towards the fans or the players. Maybe we should cut some corners and jump the gun. I say, fire them both now.
Is Mike Eric’s brother?
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Jul 3, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Wouldn’t the best way for Mangini to get out with his reputation intact be to win games, maybe even get us to the playoffs? I can live with that.
Holmgren’s presumed agenda is less clear. You think he’s looking to drop Mangini, take over himself, and lead us to victory? Not the way I’d like to see it come down, but again, I could live with it.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jul 3, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
It´s 11 guys with a ball, hopefully the best 11 guys you can find with a permission to win.
What´s the need for the smoke screen?
So permission is what we’ve been missing for 10+ years?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Jul 4, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Apparently it has something to do with Mike Mangini and his magic milk.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Jul 4, 2010 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice series Chris – thanks for the post. Only change I would make is that the decsion to retain Daboll will have more of an impact than the signing of Ben Watson. Watson is a relatively mediocre NFL TE, and I would argue we would need a Gates type of TE to materially impact the team from that position. You could argue that Daboll and Mangini are joined at the hip, but if I was the show I would have given the either he goes or you go kind of talk with Mangini.
Watson can be very good for us if we try to use him (unlike NE).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
yep. NE has never featured TEs in their offensive system and Watson could have much more of an impact in another system (sucks for gronkoski)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
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
- Preseason Confidential: Forsett and Seahawks still have concerns
- This is why we don't wear huge diamond earrings to practice
- The Shutdown Eleven: The most interesting footballers of 2010. #10: LaDainian Tomlinson
- Reports: Cardinals now want to trade Leinart; Giants interested
- Louis Delmas thinks kids are wonderful. As tackling dummies.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
