Dear Pat
by realmccoy on Nov 16, 2011 11:57 AM EST
Email
Print
Dear Pat -
I am on your side. I want you to succeed, and was thrilled to finally have an offensive minded head coach. And we are Browns fans, many who have lived through red right 88, the drive, the fumble, the helmet toss, and the wheelie. We have had staph almost kill our returning hometown heroes, and a penalty flag blind one of our lineman. We have QBs that have cried, coaches that have lied, one who wouldn't tell us who are starting QB was, and one even flipped a coin to decide our starting QB. He even called a timeout to see if he wanted to challenge a play, lost the challenge, 2 timeouts and you guessed it - it cost an opportunity to win the game.
So here is some advice - relax - we can handle the goofy stuff you will do. What we really don't enjoy is the confusing jumble you spew every week. I got news for you, you either knew Alex Smith was in the game and made a really stupid call, or didn't know personnel. No problem, just tell us what happened and treat us like the adults we all want to be some day. The kick is either blocked or it wasn't. No big deal, we can handle either option, but hearing you handle the question like it is a matter of national security is tiring.
And on the field, we are used to losing. We have been back 13 seasons, will be under 500 in 11 of them, and made the playoffs 1 time. Here is a hint - all the fair weather plans have left for other teams. We aren't going anywhere. But we do appreciate coaches that try to win. When we couldn't complete 45% of our passes, Mangini said screw it and ran the ball like 80 times a game. Most fans would throw up watching the brand of football we played, not us, we celebrated every win. Be daring. Don't worry about criticism. Go for the end zone. Tell us what you were really thinking. Accept criticism better, get a thicker skin - you will need it to survive the screw stuff that will happen only to you. You got time to turn this baby around, but start with yourself, and it will go much smoother.
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
191 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well said. I was on the ledge Monday, no lie. Time heals all wounds, as they say.
Hearing Shurmers more reasonable explanation of his thought process and decision making Monday helped, believe it or not. I may not understand or agree with his thinking, but at least he proved there was some thinking involved.
What does that MEAN - TO PLAY US OUT?!!?!?
I am not impressed either, but he was in a crap situation. Give him an OC, a real offseason, and another round of H+H stud-drafting and I think we will be pleased. oh, and if we had a running back that isn’t straight off a practice squad would be nice, too.
"Call Kenny Loggins, cuz you're in the Danger Zone!!!"
ok i agree with you about give him another draft and an offseason…but as far as the OC is concerned hell…we hired this guy, apparently, for his ability as an offensive coordinator. If we need to get him an OC whats the point of having him here as HC in the first place? Is he that great of a HC that we should keep him if hes not calling the plays?
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not in the pro-Shurmur camp yet but alright. Say we can his miserable ass and ship him back to the NFC West where apparently anyone who is as inspiring as a high school principal can be an offensive coordinator.
Who do we get then that’s so much better? Especially after firing a coach after one year, entering during a lockout. Gruden just extended, so he looks mighty comfy in his analyst chair. I’ll bet The Chin could have had this job if he wanted it before. Do we reach for a used Steve Mariuchi? Who do we get who would actually come to a franchise that doesn’t even give a guy 2 seasons?
Where did I insinuate i wanted him gone immediately?
I didn’t.
He deserves at least 2 years like everyone else. However, my point was that we hired him specifically b/c of his play calling abilities…that was his main selling point…so hiring an OC is basically admitting that his primary contribution isn’t good enough. If thats the case, then why have Shurmur as head coach? I highly doubt he is some sort of administrative genius or anything behind the scenes.
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
The problem is he needs more help juggling all the tasks associated with both jobs. Not that he can’t do one or the other well, its just that most people shouldn’t hold multiple positions. There’s a reason teams usually divvy up the responsibility and we’re seeing it first hand.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 16, 2011 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
I responded to that below. Ok, I agree with that…however all Im saying is that if we have an OC…then what, exactly, is there about Pat Shurmur that really makes him indispensable or highly desirable as simply HC. We haven’t heard anything about his organizational/administrative abilities, or his motivational skills, etc. etc. Hell all we can tell about that is what we see on the field and what we hear in the press conferences…. neither of which do not speak well at all about any of those attributes. At least up to this point, he has been very unimpressive.
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
neither of which do not speak well at all about any of those attributes.
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
its like, if a trucking company hires someone to be a driver, then finds out he cannot drive…do they fire him or hire an actual driver and just let him sit in the passenger seat?
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
they’re going to continue to let him drive, they’re just going to get him a co-pilot to read the map.
said differently, the plan appears to be: have shurmur call the plays still, but the OC will be around to prep the offense during the week, help w/ the game plan, and do stuff like, oh, i don’t know, KNOW THE FREAKING PERSONNEL ON THE FIELD.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 16, 2011 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
they’re going to continue to let him drive, they’re just going to get him a co-pilot to read the map.
Still seems like all that is then geared to simply making him a ‘competent’ head coach…when, in reality…we could use much more than just a competent head coach. Who that is, I cannot say.
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
Nah, I think I’ll continue to be interested in the browns finding an exceptional head coach.
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
most teams in the league employ all of a head coach, offensive coordinator, and defensive coordinator … 3 different people. for some reason, we thought we were hiring mike holmgren, jr. in shurmur and that he would be able to handle 2 of those 3 duties. we were wrong (well, the browns were wrong … DBN was all over that issue from minute 1).
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 16, 2011 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Still seems like all that is then geared to simply making him a ‘competent’ head coach
I don’t think his performance as a head coach thus far is a reflection of his competence, or lack of. More so a lack of experience. He seems like a plenty intelligent individual. One that can at least learn, if anything.
Think of it this way… how good were you at your job when you first started? How good are you now, and why? If you say you’re much better now it’s most likely due, in part, to the fact that you’ve gained experience and an intimate knowledge of what it takes to produce along the way. An intelligent person (with the help of some coworkers) should be able to do this.
Unless you’re a one of a kind type of coach, or a guy put in a good position, learning from failure is the only option for improvement. As a first time head coach (at any level) thrown into a shit situation, he should at least be allowed to learn from his failures.
As hard as it is, I try not to judge the guy on a week to week basis so early on in his career. I’m tired of snap judging and wanting to firing people and starting over again and again and again ect….
"That’s the reality of it and I live in that reality." Shurmur
I hated the hire from the start and even I think he deserved til the end of next year at least, the year after preferably.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Nov 17, 2011 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
I like very much what you say, sir from Tbilisi.
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Nov 17, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
that’s not an apples to apples comparison.
This is like if they hired someone who has experience to be a driver not only to drive, but to be a manager and make personnel decisions from on the road.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I think he he’s fine. I don’t remember anyone calling him an offensive genius. He’s a West Coast Guy who Holmgren hand picked for a variety of reasons. I think he does fine in his press conferences, he gets flumoxed and confused but I don’t really care that much about that stuff. He just seems annoyed that they aren’t winning more and executing the offense better. I don’t blame him. Overall its way too early for anyone to be judging him. You can be frustrated and realmccoy’s letter does that perfectly but bemoaning his idiocy and how he couldn’t coach division 3 high school, etc is a bit pre-mature.
Up to this point I believe he has done a piss-poor job. That could change, and he’ll have every opportunity to do so in the future, and i wish him the best…however, I don’t think you’ll find to many out there who think his performance up to this point has been ‘fine.’
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
The problem is he needs more help juggling all the tasks associated with both jobs. Not that he can’t do one or the other well, its just that most people shouldn’t hold multiple positions. There’s a reason teams usually divvy up the responsibility and we’re seeing it first hand.
Right. Although I question why Shurmur would be a better HC rather than just the OC.
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
We can get an OC and still let Shurmur call plays. In fact, they’ve already said that’s the plan.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 16, 2011 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
It’s just very disconcerting that he (and holmgren) seem to have miscalculated so badly about his ability to handle dual roles.
by jonnyphoenix on Nov 16, 2011 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with that.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 16, 2011 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
i believe i read somewhere, that the f.o. was gonna hire a o.c., but the right one was not available, so they went with the current configuration. maybe the guy has too much on his plate?
you definitely read that, but you read it in the last couple of weeks. i call bullshit on that … i think they were all arrogant enough to think shurmur could handle both, and it’s become abundantly clear that he can’t, so they decided they’d hire an OC next year and came up with this “couldn’t find the right guy” excuse to save face. i’m not buying it.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 16, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah someone please correct me if this is wrong, but they never even interviewed anyone for the spot.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 16, 2011 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
If I remember correct, in his introductory press conference, someone asked him if he was going to be the OC and he said yes. At that point, he was so fresh didn’t even know half the players on the roster, yet he knew that he would be doubling up on the duties. DCMJ is right, their recent excuse is BS.
The key to better sleep: Doing what's right. Of course a Browns win never hurts either.
by Browns town on Nov 17, 2011 12:30 AM EST up reply actions
You can have an offensive coordinator who doesn’t call plays.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
They interviewed 3 candidates for the OC job. Apparently they didn’t like any of them.
I take this optimism shit seriously.
by The Licensed Optimist on Nov 17, 2011 2:37 AM EST up reply actions
I know that Bill Musgrave was interviewed but took the offensive coordinator job with the Vikings instead.
They did interview some guys, no doubt.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
Give him an OC, a real offseason, and another round of H+H stud-drafting and I think we will be pleased.
I totally agree. Not only does this team need some infusion of talent, but Shurmur I feel has been given too many responsibilities. Calling the plays, being HC, drawing up plays, gameplanning in practice, and other OC duties.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Patience is a must, part of this franchise’s problems is the constant change.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 16, 2011 4:33 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. I may think Shurmur is is in over his head and I don’t see a lot to be excited about, but at some point you’ve got to stick with someone.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 16, 2011 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
Let’s tell him no one can be a head coach and and offensive coordinator and be good at either, unless you’re Marty Shottenheimer.
Or Shaun Peyton, or Andy Reid, or a few other guys I think.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 16, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
If we hire an OC, Shurmur will be MUCH better. Going from handling both duties of HC and OC, to just OC is a huge lift off of his shoulders. I think we didn’t have an OC on purpose to throw him right in then make it easier next year, so he appreciates the difficulty of being an NFL coach.
so he appreciates the difficulty of being an NFL coach
i think you’re giving them too much credit. i think it was a pure whiff that they didn’t hire an OC, and they’re going to fix it now.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 16, 2011 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
I heard that Pat has taken McCoys ability to audible and call time outs away from him this year so he basically runs whatever play is called. Can anyone confirm this? If its true I have a huge issue with the way he is handling this team. McCoy last year was at his best when he could walk to the line and read what the D was showing. Taking that ability away and handcuffing him with only the play you call (which has been terrible by the way) is setting him up for failure and the team up for a 3-13 season.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Nov 16, 2011 6:23 PM EST reply actions
wouldn’t the idea that shurmur restricts the quarterback’s ability to call timeouts immediately debunk such a ridiculous notion?
that and mccoy and shurmur have answered this question 10 times: colt has the ability to call audibles. he’s just not very good at it.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 16, 2011 6:37 PM EST up reply actions
Ive heard the opposite although like I said its nothing I could confirm. Although with Pats offense nothing seems ridiculous to me. This offense is worse then the 2009 Offense in terms of scoring and not much better in terms of yards.
2009: 15.3 PPG 260 ypg
2011: 14.6 PPG 294 ypg
by Justin Kowalczyk on Nov 16, 2011 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
Where did you hear the opposite? Colt and Pat have both said repeatedly that he can audible.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 16, 2011 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
McCoys post game transcript http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/article-1/Player-Quotes—-1113/38de14c2-23ad-4ee3-a845-c54c22f3c8bf
Asked if he thought of audibling out of the run with Smith: NO
Asked if he has the option to audible: No.
On 92.3 Jason Pinkston claimed that no audibles were called during the Texans game at all and when asked said he wasnt sure if McCoy even had audibles available to him.
by Justin Kowalczyk on Nov 17, 2011 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Which begs the question, if Pinkston is playing guard and doesn’t hear an audible, does it mean that there was no audible?
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
I have the best wife - ever.
by JustBob on Nov 17, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
(On if he thought about calling an audible on that play)- "No."
(On if he has the option to audible that play)- "No."
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
by Villeslgr on Nov 17, 2011 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually I listened to it a couple times because I was very curious about that exchange.
He was asked “Do you have that option?”. That said, I do think when McCoy answered (“No”) he was almost certainly talking specifically about that play.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Nov 17, 2011 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
the one game where Jerome Harrison played out of his freakin’ mind skewed the stats more than you may realize.
2009 for the other 15 games: 13.6 ppg and 250 yards
The Browns Offense sucked 10 times worse than this year for 14 games that year and those 14 games skew the stats. One took a ridiculous performance from Harrison and one was against an awful lions passing D when they went 2-14.
The Browns have only once had less than 200 yards or less than 200 points. In 2009, the Browns had less than 200 yards 7 times and scored less than 10 points 7 times (5 in the first 8 games). The numbers are greatly skewed by 2 games that are statistical outliers where we scored 37+ points in each.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
i thought shurmer’s play calling was much better this past week. colt was in shotgun more often and Colt looked fairly comfortable running the offense. We need to work on our Red Zone offense. Last year Hillis scored quite a few of our red zone td’s. He is missed and I’d love to see him back at full strength on our team for the next 3 years. Go Browns
I mean what else is there? After all of these years this shit gets old. I got to give Pat another year minimum. I hope Holmgren hires a OC, Browns get a RT, a excellent WR and a RB that stays healthy. Then I will evaluate accordingly.
If failure is staring at us again at the nine game mark, then get Gruden out of the ESPN gig and coach this team.
He’s going to get at least two years.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Nov 17, 2011 7:28 AM EST up reply actions
If there is a better choice out there (previously successful NFL coach or very successful, hungry college coach) that will play here I say replace Shurmur. But it won’t happen. Holmgren would lose too much face. Those who think he needs more time to learn and become good in Cleveland (like we are some kind of QB/head coach training ground) are going to get their wish.
Brownsyup
firing a coach after a season does absolutely nothing for the team in the long term. If anything, it sets us back.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
hungry college coach
I hear you, but this is probably the case with virtually every coach in college football. Who wouldn’t want the chance?
I don’t see it being an outstanding qualification, though. Especially if you’re talking about replacing a guy who hasn’t been here 12 games.
"That’s the reality of it and I live in that reality." Shurmur
college-to-pros is almost always a disaster.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 17, 2011 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
yes. Harbaugh is an exception to the rule because he came into a great situation.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
What do you think of Carol? I mean the Seahawks are pretty bad but we’ve seen some improvement lately and they have had some surprising wins. This is what I’d expect with the Browns this year. Under Mangini we beat some good teams, there were minimal penalties, he made sense after the game when he talked, and he improved the aspects of the team he was good at.
My big issue with Shurmur is that he does not seem to be making any progress with this team—if anything, the team is much worse than it was at the first of the year. He doesn’t use the skill mix he has to the best advantage. There isn’t even a glimmer of excellence in any aspect of the game. I’d say that good events in the game are function of outstanding plays by the players in-spite of the coaching, not because of it. This is supposed to be the pinnacle of football coaching—a head coach position in the NFL. This is not a place to learn and develop. You should demonstrate immediate promise and show that you belong here. We shouldn’t have to make excuses for the coach. It is up to him to demonstrate to all of us that he deserves to be a head coach in the NFL.
Another thing that should be a big red flag… Why is Holmgren saying we need an OC next year? If that is a vote of confidence I’m missing something. True he is saying the OC won’t call plays but it sounds to me that he is hedging and maybe even selecting his next head coach. If the team tanks early next year maybe the new OC will end up being the new head coach. If you pick Shurmur and don’t start the season with an OC, why do you think you need one now? Not a vote of confidence in any sense by Holmgren.
Brownsyup
This is not a place to learn and develop. You should demonstrate immediate promise and show that you belong here
I disagree. You should be allowed to learn and develop at any level of coaching. Otherwise you fire and hire every two years, which has been this organizations prior logic… which has proven to fail.
Also, the fact that the team appears worse than the beginning of the year isn’t just the poor job of Shurmur (which is a part of it). It’s a combination of injuries, poor play at skill positions, lack of talent, off the field distraction… Not the best head start for a rookie head coach with a ton of expectations.
"That’s the reality of it and I live in that reality." Shurmur
Otherwise you fire and hire every two years, which has been this organizations prior logic… which has proven to fail.
This organization’s logic has been to hire poor coaches. Simply keeping guys around does not equate to success.
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
Butch Davis and Romeo were thought to be excellent hires at the time. I think the bigger problem has been drafting. Big Money? BE, K2, hell even Kam Wimbley, who we traded up to a division rival is gone. 37th overall pick from a few years ago – gone. Brady Quinn – gone and cost us another draft. You just can’t expect to win when you’re that poor on draft day. Either that or we just didn’t know how to develop players. If that’s the case, then Shurmur and Jauron are doing a hell of a job doing that.
heckert is the first legitimate GM we’ve had (even though savage was an entirely defensible hire at the time, in spite of the fact that he turned into a complete disaster) since ’99. that makes a massive difference.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
In addition to what LocalMan said, this team also jettisoned a lot of Mangini’s veterans and got younger across the board. Of course there’s going to be a dropoff when you’re losing that much experience. I’m not saying Shurmur is great, but he’s a rookie head coach putting a very young team out there. The guys that walk right in and do amazing are exceptional for a reason, and they’re incredibly hard to find. I wish we had one of these guys, but we don’t so the alternative is to keep some continuity and let all these young guys learn on the job.
The reason is that someone already built the team for them and they’re giving them the extra nudge to get them turned around quickly. We had nothing building here. We had a bunch of old scrub players who could barely be bothered to make a tackle late in games.
We had a bunch of old scrub players who could barely be bothered to make a tackle late in games.
this is clearly not true.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
If you went back and watched late game tackling last year you would see it is completely true.
There was a play late in the Carolina game where I swear Eric Barton ran away from the tackle (and it wasn’t to get better position or anything, he just didn’t feel like taking a hit). See also end of Jets game, end of Jax game and most of the games in December.
couldn’t be bothered is different from being not-that-good, though. one of the most impressive things about mangini’s teams was that they really didn’t mail it in.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
What do you think of Carol?
also an exception to the rule. previous NFL Head coaching experience.
My big issue with Shurmur is that he does not seem to be making any progress with this team
I saw progress on Sunday. we still didn’t have good head coaching, but it at least seemed he opened up the playbook and it would be disingenuous to dismiss that.
He doesn’t use the skill mix he has to the best advantage.
Did you watch some of the plays on Sunday?
here isn’t even a glimmer of excellence in any aspect of the game
I wouldn’t expect anything close to “excellence” with this team at this point.
Why is Holmgren saying we need an OC next year?
Because Shurmur has playcalling duties, duties designing the offense, duties running the offense in practice, and HC duties. Its not illogical to assume he thinks Shurmur has too much on his plate. I think its less about how Shurmur is bad and more about his blunder of not even trying to find an OC.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
it at least seemed he opened up the playbook and it would be disingenuous to dismiss that.
honestly, this “opening up the playbook” stuff is being way way overblown, in my opinion. opening up the playbook to run the wildcat and play your backup qb as a wr seems to me to be more desperation than progress. i understand there is limited talent to work with on the offensive side of the ball, etc., but i view trickeration as being less of a sign of improvement and more of a sign of “well, shit … we can’t do a gosh darn thing on offense … what say we start drawing up some plays in the dirt?!”
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 17, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
is that really “opening it up”, though? i don’t know … i don’t want to get into a famous DBN semantics debate. i’m glad shurmur got more creative, but let’s not overstate what we saw. we saw a shitty team trying to exploit some trick plays. kudos for the creativity, but we didn’t exactly see a great step forward in the offense this week.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
What do you think of Carol?
Seriously? The guy who has consecutively brought in Charlie Whitehurst and Tavaris Jackson? and I kinda like Jackson but come on man, you clearly have some bigger issues with Shurmur if you’re throwing out Carol as a better alternative. Also you say you’ve seen progress with them but not the Browns? I seriously question the level at which you’re watching these games. Watch it on a play by play level instead of the final score or the blown defensive and ST teams plays and its very obvious this team is improving.
Watch it on a play by play level instead of the final score or the blown defensive and ST teams plays and its very obvious this team is improving.
you realize how ridiculous this sounds, right?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
I’m sure it does sound ridiculous to some but if you watch each play you can see lots of positives and with a little vision its not too hard to see that once these guys all get in synch and understand where they’re supposed to be on the majority of plays they could do some damage. It’s just not going to happen overnight. The game has to slow down for them a lot. Even Haden who has played like a stud is going to get way better. He’s playing mostly with pure physicality. I see him developing a vision that’s going to turn him into an interception machine for a season until people just stop throwing his way all together.
“don’t focus on the mistakes, focus on the non-mistakes, and you’ll see improvement” is really what i find to be ridiculous. of course there are instances of improvement from play to play, but the point is that the team, taken as a unit, has not improved … defensive lapses and ST plays are a big part of that.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
No no, you have to look at how Colt is setting his feet, how he’s finding open receivers open more often, how the receivers have good position on the DBs. Not every play, but on more plays each week. I know it was the Rams but the run blocking was much better this week too. Sure they may be the worst run D but at least we exploited that with a Practice Squad RB
I agree with this DCMJoey… that college to pros is more often a disaster. But it can also be successful. I just think you have to be very careful as most of the time you are signing up to develop an NFL head coach. I’d much prefer a proven head coach that is out of football and wants to get back in. There are quite of few of them out there right now that I think would be an upgrade over Shurmur.
Brownsyup
But it can also be successful.
very rarely. and there is generally some aspect that makes a coach an exception to the rule when he succeeds.
Jim harbaugh: Inherited an underachieving but immensely talented team
Caroll: had been a HC in the NFL before
Jimmy Johnson: Spent some time as an assistant under a HOF HC (as an assistant HC)
Bill Walsh: Same as Johnson (though under a different HC)
Coughlin: protege of Parcells
A guy can be successful in college, but it has to be the right guy (i.e, he generally has to have coached under a great NFL HC or walk into a good situation). The kind of guys I mentioned above are rare and not all these guys have success either (i.e. Petrino was a coach under Coughlin).
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
there’s a well-distributed stat about how many people have ever won a super bowl w/ 2 teams, right: 0. the number of coaches that have even taken two teams to the super bowl is really low.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
Bill Bellichick. John Gruden. Norv Turner. Tony Dungy. These are just off the top of my head and in the last decade.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 9:54 AM EST up reply actions
Bellichick wasn’t proven, he sucked here.
Dungy and Gruden were picked up immediately — they didn’t get out then want to get back in.
Norv Turner sucks.
Marty is the only re-tread I can think of. Dungy was pretty much in his prime as a coach. TB was lucky as hell the Gruden thing worked at least the first year.
I agree with Norv Turner. He’s an idiot.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 18, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
bro hug
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
i figured that was implied (turner being an idiot)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
You asked for re-treads who worked. All of those guys have very successful records after being fired somewhere else.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
What about firing him after two?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 17, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
Shurmur isn’t going anywhere. This is the hard part of building a franchise wide system.
Sometimes you have to wait things out.
As long as we actually wait it out this time. We have yet to really do this.
Dawgs By Nature: Where we're about one loss away from Jonestowning ourselves.
Thank God for Holmgren.
I know there are some here that hate the dude, but it allows us to actually let this play out.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t blame Holmgren for that, and I know we feel very differently about this.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
Not saying that you didn’t say it, but I don’t remember hearing anyone anywhere saying sometimes you have to wait things out with any of our previous head coaches.
I understand you have to give guys a chance, I’m not calling for the Head Coach to be fired, but it seems many our arguing that we need to give the Head Coach time because that’s simply what you have to do. As if time is the magic bullet for success. If a guy proves that he deserves the time to be successful than he has earned it, if not you shouldn’t waste time going down the wrong path.
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
I have had no problem with getting rid of any of our coaches since we came back in ’99. But the people calling for Shurmur to be fired are crazy.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
What’s the difference?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 17, 2011 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
You really think you can get a good idea on what kind of coach Shurmur is after 9 games? C’mon, be serious here.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
Let’s give a hypothetical. We’re 4-12 this year, and 5-11 next year. We look slightly more competent but not much. Do you retain Shurmur?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 17, 2011 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
Yes I would imagine that he would get another season. But there are so many factors at play in that situation it’s hard to give you a good answer. Who’s the QB? Who’s the OC? Do we look like we are getting better? Are young players progressing etc?
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
My question then is how could you be totally in favor of firing Mangini but not totally in favor of firing Shurmur in the same situation?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
My opinion on that has been beaten into the ground.
Mangini wasn’t going to work with this FO. Shurmur will. Huge difference.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 18, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Shurmur will.
But if he isn’t winning, is he really working with the FO? Or do they just eat the same foods?
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
i think heckert eats all of the foods.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 22, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
that’s a very tough decision. If with better talent, the team only looks slightly more competent I am not sure if it will work out here for him.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Nah, I’m through with Shumur. He has no offensive scheme other than confuse us, the fans. It looks like with the playcalling that this season was a wash from the start and has just been one big “Lets evaluate who we’ve got” scheme.
Granted he hasn’t had the luxury of a preseason or a healthy or even stellar team… but seriously by now everyone should be knowing what they need to do and be all touchy-feely comfortable with each other. Yeah the OL is injured but the backups aren’t “that” bad. The RB situation is in full on “oh sh#t” mode. The WRs are on par of what has been…. The Defense has come together fairly nice, Jauron is doing a good job and helped me get past us dropping Ryan as the DC. Granted we get tore up something bad until the opposing offense gets into the redzone and the D shines…
Also coming into this season, I thought we had a better chance running the Triple Option offense than the West Coast Offense. Granted right now with our RB situation, we’d be… well where we are now pretty much….
But honestly if that scheme was actually viable for the NFL, I think that this year’s team probably would’ve been best set up to run it. Granted you’d have to put Wallace or Cribbs at QB, though McCoy is fairly mobile but dings up easy, but I think it could’ve been fairly successful with the triple threat we had in the backfield.
Never thought about that. As far as not being viable in the NFL, has it been tried and failed? Or is it just common knowledge that it wouldn’t work for whatever reason?
"Tracers work both ways" ~US Army Ordnance
I think the main problem with it is that QBs are a huge investment and the triple option puts them at a high risk of getting crushed on any given play.
Exactly my reason on why it wouldn’t be feasible unless it was Wallace or Cribbs sitting behind center.
has just been one big "Lets evaluate who we’ve got" scheme.
Am I the only person who sees this as a positive?
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
I see it as a smart move from a FO perspective in maybe the last half of the season. But while in the front half of the year, we should be trying to win or play smart football. Not saying that we’re not playing to win, but this is giving me the same feeling as watching the Indians towards the end of the seasons as of late… No hope and trying out the farm team players to see who might be a brought up for a permanent spot next year.
It’s the smart thing to do.
If you were a cook and walked into a new kitchen, wouldn’t you see what is in the fridge and pantry before you went to the store?
We weren’t going to make the playoffs this season, use this season to take stock of what we have. Hell, that’s half the reason I’m not that pissed we lost Sunday. That missed FG could be the difference between Blackmon and Jeffery.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
It’s the smart thing to do.
i agree. i want to win, but we would have been lucky to win 6 games this year from the second mangini was fired. let’s build something to make ’12+ as awesome as possible.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 17, 2011 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
This isn’t a new kitchen. This is the FO’s second year here. What were they doing last year?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 17, 2011 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
Getting rid of all the old players that the previous regime relied upon?
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
So then what about next year when we have new players? Will we be “evaluating what we’ve got” then too? At what point does this stop? The only players who weren’t here last year are a couple FAs and the rookies. Other than that our starters aren’t all that different. That’s the kind of turnover you see every year. At what point are we no longer ok with throwing away games evaluating players?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 17, 2011 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
We had huge turnover this season, we lost a lot of guys that played a lot of downs. We have an entire new defense. We needed to find out what we had at WR, Defensive line, Linebacker, and most importantly QB. This was a massive check out season.
We changed offensive and defensive scheme. I know people wanted to go sign a bunch of free agents, but finding out what we had here is more important. We needed to know if Robo and MoMass were junk (they are). We needed to find out if Colt can be they guy (ehhhh?).
Those questions needed answering and the sooner the better.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
Other than that our starters aren’t all that different.
Vickers
Womack
St. Clair
Kenyon Coleman
Roth
Barton
Wright
Elam
Right there, thats 8 starters that started a majority of games last year that we lost. out of 22 (if you don’t include punters and kickers), thats about 37% of the starters. That’s not including guys like Trusnik, Stuckey, and Robaire that started a handful of games and were key reserves.
There are A LOT of starters that are missing. We didn’t bring in a ton of players, we just got rid of guys who didn’t fit what H&H were trying to do.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
We didn’t bring in a ton of players, we just got rid of guys who didn’t fit what H&H were trying to do.
I’m sorry, but by rule you have to bring in exactly as many guys as you get rid of. The roster is a set number.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
Is it really? I was just under the impression that they could have a maximum of 53 players with some set minimum. I didn’t realize they have to have exactly 53 at all times.
"Tracers work both ways" ~US Army Ordnance
Any team that carries less than 53 will have a new GM very soon.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
these guys were pretty much replaced in their roster spot by the “couple FAs and rookies”.
There wasn’t a large number of turnover in actual players on the roster. Even when having a full rebuild, that generally doesn’t happen. However, they did get rid of several starters that were “mangini guys”.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
buying themselves an extra bullshit year
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 17, 2011 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
I know I’m in the minority, but I still don’t buy this. That four game winning streak clouded peoples views.
That four game winning streak was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since #17.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 17, 2011 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
well, as you yourself have said, it has always been fairly apparent that mangini is an asshole. it’s also quite apparent that he does things the belichick way, which is dramatically different from the walsh way (which holmgren subscribes to, obviously). mangini was never going to run a pure WCO — how did holmgren seriously allow daboll back? — and was NEVER going to run a 4-3, which holmgren and company clearly prefer. the 4-game winning streak made things harder, but holmgren was hired b/c he’s a pro. letting mangini dangle for a year was total horeshit.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
Well I think bringing Daboll back was part of the point – they had a 4 game winning streak that had the potential to carry over into the next year. If you think that could happen you wouldn’t change anything.
Put yourself in Holmgren’s shoes:
You are put in charge to turn this franchise around. Your head coach rips off a four game winning streak. Everyone all the sudden believes that you have an up and coming team for the next season. Do you risk upsetting that because you don’t think Mangini is the guy, or do you give him another season to see if it is for real?
If he would have fired Mangini and the team had the season they did, people would have gone insane.
The truly only fair, and smart choice, was to give Mangini another full season. When it didn’t work, they moved on. I don’t think H&H were planning to fire him ahead of time.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 18, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
Was Mangini retained because of the win streak or because it’s crazy to fire a guy after one season?
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
Personally, I would say the four game winning streak.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 19, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
If he retained Mangini because of a 4 game win streak and not because he thought he was the future coach, then he made a decision using the absolute WRONG thing he should have been making the decision on.
Holmgren specifically stated the 4 game winning streak as the reason he kept him.
I’m not sure that’s the wrong reason. Several bad teams have shown winning streaks in the second half of a season under a new coach and gone on to have success in the following years.
I think my problem with it (and maybe Dorn’s) is that it doesn’t mesh with the stated reason for firing him. The stated reason for firing him was that he didn’t run the same systems as the front office, that he didn’t fit in well with what they were trying to build. It’s not like that changed in the one year they gave him, that was the case before. If they were going to fire him for that, it should have been done right away.
Anyway you look at it, it’s a wasted year for this franchise that should have been avoided, but wasn’t.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2011 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
Since I was never that excited about the Mangini pick I wouldn’t have minded firing him after 1 year, but what if he didn’t go 5-11 the second year and went 10-6? I think Mangini still has a job regardless of his system. The system thing is just one part of Holmgren’s argument, the record is the bigger part.
holmgren backed himself into a corner before he even got into the building in berea by saying that 1 year is not sufficient to evaluate a coach. that statement alone forced him to stick with what he knew was a bad fit for how he wanted to build the organization.
to me, it’s faulty to suggest that holmgren had 2 visions for the franchise when he took over: 1. maybe mangini will work out with a system that heckert and i don’t really know anything about and then our jobs are really easy, or 2. rebuild the entire place in my image and in keeping with what heckert knows … WCO and 4-3 defense.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 23, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
I totally agree. You can’t fire a guy after that. But it didn’t really continue into the next year and then end of the season was the nail in the coffin. They clearly had given up.
If the 5 wins would have been spread out throughout the season no doubt Holmgren fires EM and brings in their guy. What exactly did they need that year for anyway?
You can’t fire a guy after that
that was the whole point of bringing holmgren in. he had carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted, and the fans would have sopped it up w/ stale bread.
if burdening mangini with jake f’ing delhomme at qb wasn’t proof that holmgren wanted mangini out toute suite then i’m not sure what else to tell you.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 18, 2011 1:14 AM EST up reply actions
Come on Delhomme is totally a Mangini type of guy. Hard to tell all the details of who wanted what, but isn’t Mangini generally credited with driving the Quinn for Hillis exchange?
Sure Holmgren could do whatever he wanted – but who would if you saw that late season burst? That’s usually when new teams start to show progress – late in the first year. You hope it carries over to the next, and it almost did, but they could never put away games.
Come on Delhomme is totally a Mangini type of guy.
?
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
If it clouded Mike Holmgren’s view we need a new head executive.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 9:58 AM EST up reply actions
The entire NFL thought we were headed in the right direction.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 18, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
The entire NFL media. Many of us on this site (and I believe you fit into this category) recognized that in order to win consistently you had to throw more than 11 times in a game and you had to beat good teams.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 18, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying that we were good, but we were headed in the right direction.
Holmgren took a risk. It didn’t work out. We moved on. I don’t see why that means Holmgren was plotting this ahead of time.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 19, 2011 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t know about that. We played like crap the entire season and pulled together a 4 game winning streak against other crappy teams.
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
Using offenses that were stupider than what Denver is running now.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2011 8:57 AM EST up reply actions
if you look at the 2009 schedule that ville posted above, the passing yardage totals in that 4-game winning streak topped out at like 121. pathetic.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 23, 2011 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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
