DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum RAC 'EM!!

Also I have read alot of posters on here talking about agenda's. Well I will admit I have an agenda. My agenda is for the Browns to play in and win a Super Bowl before I die. If that is a bad agenda, then excuse the hell out of me!

Now if my agenda includes having the coaches and players in place to reach my agenda then so be it. IMO Romeo and Derek do not have the abilites to help reach my agenda. If you disagree that is fine, besides it is just my opinion!

Today I heard, on ESPN radio (Collin Cowheard I believe) that to have a Super Bowl Championship type team your organization needed 4 things.

1. a top of the line Owner
2. a top of the line GM
3. a top of the line coach
4. a top of the line QB

It made alot of sense just look at the Patriots. In my opinion we may have one of the four and I'll bet you can guess which one i'm talking about!

jc

Someone asked earlier about the 2 minute drill. It has been reported that Rip Scherer is the only one talking into the 3 QB headsets and Chud is calling plays relayed through Scherer to DA.

Just FYI.

Quote:

---

Today I heard, on ESPN radio (Collin Cowheard I believe) that to have a Super Bowl Championship type team your organization needed 4 things.

---

OMG Corpus,, you have been around long enough to know that Putting too much store in what a Talking head says is a waste of time..

I still see serious issues in many of the things he says during conferences, and scratch my head regarding how poor his game management is. I think a contract extension is an extreme over-reaction at this point, and I disagree vehemently with anyone that says he's a "lame duck" head coach if he's not given a contract extension right now

First I always have issue giving any coach a extension until he wins something...seen it happen way too many times..
Rac is in no danger of losing his job so he's not in that lame duck position..nuff said..
In terms of game management I still feel on offense , it's a first year OC who is pretty much in control with Rac [perhaps making suggestions at certain times..
On D..this is where I have the issue..because of the mess I heard that was going on early on..then things improved once he got more involved..
Of course he's not going to throw TG under the bus, but I seriously did question him coming here from Houston without any DC experience..
I feel he doesn't know how to run the 34 even with the lack of talent on board..

Quote:

---

First I always have issue giving any coach a extension until he wins something...seen it happen way too many times..

---

I agree, generally, giving before I get isn't something I make a habit of doing.,..

However,, in this case, we are trying to improve the talent of the team,.. Free Agents are no doubt, part of the plan,.. Coaches on a short leash or those that appear to be on one are at a disadvantage when it comes to convincing FA's to come here.

I also think there is one other thing that plays in here.. RAC seems well respected by his assistants, players and it appears by the Front Office.

What message does it send that RAC's agent is trying to get an extension, makes it public and Then it doesn't get done. For whatever reason.. What message does that send to the players.

And the really funny thing is this,, it don't mean diddly in the grand scheme of things. If RAC totally loses the team, can't win a game,, extension or not, he's gonna get canned...

Lerner will just pay him off like he did Butch (I'm still having a problem with him being paid 12 million walking out the door) And to Lerner,, $12 million is like $120.00 bucks to you and I.. You don't want to throw it away, but still, it's not gonna make it so you can't feed your family

Maybe the whole thought process that it may affect how FA's view us is wrong. maybe I'm over blowing that... don't know. But it makes sense to me.

What message does it send that RAC's agent is trying to get an extension, makes it public and Then it doesn't get done. For whatever reason.. What message does that send to the players.


Oh boy..read this..
http://www.ohio.com/sports/browns/13225772.html
By Marla Ridenour
Beacon Journal sportswriter


Published on Saturday, Jan 05, 2008

Coach Romeo Crennel's agent Joe Linta said he and the Browns are not in the midst of negotiations over a contract extension, although Linta would like to be.

Linta said Thursday he made one telephone call to the Browns concerning Crennel's status. Crennel, 60, signed a five-year contract in February 2005 that has two years remaining.

''It would be akin to an end-of-the-year evaluation meeting, not necessarily talking about football,'' Linta said. ''Nobody said anything about a three-year deal. It was an inquiry from me to see where we stand, 'Let's evaluate this three years into it.' ''

A report Wednesday that a three-year extension was in the works came on the heels of an Internet report that Crennel would be the first choice of new Miami Dolphins Vice President of Football Operations Bill Parcells. Crennel addressed that possibility twice, saying both times that he always has honored his contract.

''It would have been a great rumor for me to plant,'' Linta said. ''I wish I could take credit for it.''

Linta said his ideal scenario for Crennel would be a five-year extension at $5 million per year.

''If he was worth a five-year deal three years ago, he ought to be worth a five-year deal now,'' Linta said. ''Make him the face of the franchise so when you go into free agency, he's the future, he's rock solid.

''If you would have asked people in the 216 and 330 area codes, 'Would you sign up for 10-6 this year?' they would have done it. There's a huge cohesiveness on the staff, the organization is coming together. He's turned the program around.''

Linta said if he's ultimately rebuffed, there will be no hard feelings.

''If they're not going to do anything, fine,'' Linta said. ''In a perfect world, we'd want (owner) Randy Lerner to say, 'We want Romeo to be the face of the franchise for the foreseeable future, and we're willing to make that commitment.' If they don't, nobody's mad at anybody.''

So..Rac's agent let the first beatwriter from the PD THINK they were in contract talks and let her run with it but Marla apparently spoke to him and he had to say there were none going on..
Then read this..

http://www.theclevelandfan.com/article_detail.php?id=2770&ref=STO

Mary Kay strikes again.

What won't she print?

Mary Kay is the kind of reporter who would ask RAC, "If your starting quarterback got injured and couldn't finish the game would you play the rookie?". And if RAC said, "Yes I would play the rookie if that happened", then she would rush to print her story headline, "Rookie May Get Playing Time In Next Game".


I've heard her ask questions in a press conference, listened to the answer, then read her story in the paper thinking how in the hell did she get this out of that?!

Geez,, I hadn't read any of that to be honest,,, All I read was from a few days ago when it was reported (I think by Cabot of the PD) that Linta had been trying to get a deal done and it was also reported that RAC was the first choice of Parcells in Miami,,

My comment on the Miami thing was, wouldn't that be considered tampering,, after All RAC is under contract and I really didn't think that kind of thing was allowed...

All these rumors,, I hate them,, Thanks for the info Attack

What won't she print?

Her earnings...

That's because whatever it is it's too much.


She's been on a few of the Browns TV shows on STO and for a so-so reporter she seems reasonably knowledgeable of the game.

I wanted to touch on also about Grantham, RAC and the defense. It's true that after you told me that thing, RAC did indeed get more involved and the defense improved. But I agree with Vers that Grantham's schemes seem ok.

After all, I'm sure RAC has input into and has to approve of the final gameplan. But it's in-game that I think G struggles. Still, I believe a lot of that is talent related and what G is willing to try and do with it.

We all know that when you blitz one you take one out of coverage, and if the blitz is unsuccessful, (i.e. no sack, no pressure), all you've done is run that play with one less defender. Blitz two with no results and it's even worse. I think G is apprehensive about that.

I believe a lot of that is going to take care of itself with whatever Phil is able to do to upgrade the D. Still, I agree with what someone said in a post somewhere not too long ago that it will be '09 before we dominate on D the way we really need to.

But I expect a huge turnaround in '08. Not as huge as the offense turned around this season, but enough to get us into the middle of the pack without changing much except some of the talent and thus the things G is willing to do with it.

Funny about schemes when a few players were saying they were BEING SCHEMED out of the play..remember that part I sent U?

Thats a bit before the Rac comment about getting involved..
So did TG scheme correctly at first?
I feel otherwise..there were too many gaps in pass coverage and too many people confused on their assignments..

I think it turned around sometime after two things happened..McGinest got healthy and Rac injected more himself..
Why did I mention WM?
Another voice said he started getting the other guys lined up correctly when he got back in..
So ...why wasn't that done beforehand?

You're a DC..U OUGHT to know if your players are out of position ..and who the main culprits are..

Rac said openly that people were out of position..and he did mentioned being undisciplined also..did he not?

I still say the lack of communication between TG and the players was bigger than realized..now does it still play a factor?
I have still been checking out some things, and I'm still hearing some of the same things I heard before..so the TG thing hasn't really gone away...

There have been a lot of people saying Rac plays a passive D more toward bend but don't break..once more players say Rac likes a aggressive D...
I found that very interesting, since I wasn't leaning toward the aggressive style either..
So I based my thoughts on what I learned players were saying...

In fact if you look at the players do they seem more suited to play a aggressive style or a read/react style?

I can agree about 09 being the more fixed year to watch the D.
The next offseason will see new FA's and draft picks who'll have to blend in and work together ..

Quote:
I know many times we end up on terrible terms - but I still wish to talk football with you and be friends.

If we were friends, you would not say--or insinuate--that I was a liar. Saying things like I was shrewd means I am trying to deceive people.

Never mind...thought I'd give it a try
Your loss not mine

Quote:

---

To the fans who are extremely knowledeable about the team, Opie is the face of the franchise. Not RAC, not Lerner, and certainly not any of the players. It's Savage.

---

You may be right, Toad, but I don't necessarily agree. It could just be that I'm not one of the "extremely knowlegeable," but I see them BOTH as the face of the Browns, simultaneously... and I also suspect that it's just the way they want it.

Matter of fact, I believe they've planned it to be this way. Phil most definitely assembles the parts, directs the momentum, and pulls the strings... but it's Romeo what make it go. Players ain't sacrificing their bodies for Phil on Sundays- they're doing for the Big Dawg.

And when they have to put on a public face for the cameras, they decide together who will show- and what will be said.

Let's be real here... you almost can't separate Phil from Romeo because of one other very important piece of back-story: Phil owes his present employment status to Romeo Crennel. If you recall, Randy had to choose between Phil Savage and John Collins. Media flurry and fan letter-writing may have helped to swing his decision a little, but it was Romeo who went to bat for Phil more than anyone else. Dude stepped up- BigTime... and reminded Young Lerner about what was important- at just the right time-- in a high-stakes Life Moment. That moment cemented these two for the forseeable future. (It's the main reason why I never bought any of the "fire RAC" stuff... not for a moment)

You might not think that RAC deserves a contract extension, but that might not be how Phil sees it. In all our altar-building to the the icon that is Phil, we may have overlooked something... ... maybe Phil feels that he needs Romeo as much as we think RAC needs him.


At least something to consider....

Cleveland Browns coach Romeo Crennel discusses future for team, himself

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Tony Grossi
Plain Dealer Reporter


The retirement of Joe Gibbs in Washington leaves Romeo Crennel, 60, as the NFL's oldest head coach. He has three days on Dallas' Wade Phillips and 70 days on the Giants' Tom Coughlin.

But nothing makes a football coach feel younger than winning.

In his third season as Browns coach, Crennel produced a 10-6 record - the team's best since re turning in 1999. It lost a playoff spot on a tiebreaker. A year ago, Crennel was on the hot seat after seasons of 6-10 and 4-12. Now he's riding high in the saddle - on the verge of receiving a contract extension.

In a recent one-on-one interview with Tony Grossi, Crennel talked about his relationship with General Manager Phil Savage and his plans for the future.

Q: You may not have been Coach of the Year, but you were the Comeback Coach of the Year. A year ago at this time, you were engaged in making a new staff. How did you feel about that then?

A: Anytime you make change, it's not always comfortable and a lot of times it's not convenient. But you do what you think is best for the organization. And so, when we sit down and we talk about how we need to improve or things we need to do to make the Browns better, the offense was one way we felt we needed to improve. So we had to go through the process. You don't always like it, but you do what you think is best to try to help your team. And that's what we did. We got through it and it paid off.

Phil Savage has made the statement that there seems to be a good chemistry on your staff and in the locker room. In retrospect, was there not good chemistry before?

I think when you try to put people together who are new people and have not necessarily worked together before, and if you don't know everybody, you just don't know how it's going to work. Because everybody has an ego and different personalities, and sometimes personalities clash. If you have a situation where personalities are clashing, then with the players, the group those guys are trying to manage, I think those personalities run over. So sometimes it's hard to get everybody to be cohesive if everybody is not on the same page. And I think these guys we got in here are doing a good job of being on the same page and working together, and I think that helps.

Since the Browns set up this distinct GM and head coach office - and most teams have it - whenever there is that setup, there's a possibility of butting heads, the two offices. Has that happened here?

No, it really hasn't happened. I mean, everybody doesn't always see eye to eye. But the bottom line is what is best for the Browns. That's one of the things that [owner] Randy Lerner talked about in the interview process - about can you be a Cleveland Brown, and we want to do what's best for the Browns. You know that you're not going to win all the battles. So when you don't agree, then the underlying theme is what's best for the Browns because that's who we work for. So what's best for the Browns is what we need to do. I win some, he wins some. But we talk about them. We sit down and we're civil. And we talk about what we think here and there. And then we make a decision and go with it.

A lot of times when a coach finally wins, he gains influence, more than he might have had. Do you need more influence or seek more influence in personnel matters?

I don't need more influence because just about everything gets discussed. Phil will come in and talk to me about we need to do about this or about a player. He will ask me. Generally there's a consensus when a decision is made. In the draft when Brady Quinn was still available, he asked, 'What do you think about trading our No. 1 to get Quinn?' I said, 'Hey, from where we had that guy on the board, that's not a bad deal.' As it worked out, we ended up with him and it turned out to be a pretty good deal for the Browns.

What if you were steadfast against it?

Well, if I was steadfast against it and he was steadfast for it, then a decision would have had to be made. And as the GM, he would have had the power and he makes the call because the draft is more his arena. And, boom, he makes the call and we go with it.

As you complete your third year here on a winning note, are you comfortable with the way things are set up? As comfortable? More comfortable?

I think as comfortable as I've always been, because we always talk about things. I think it's different when you're not informed and don't have a chance to voice your opinion about things. But when you're informed and you know why things are being done, then it's easier to be comfortable with it.

To end this subject, Savage . . . indicated he intends to begin talks about a contract extension. Does it bother you that [offensive coordinator Rob] Chudzinski got an extension first?

No, I'm glad. Because one of the reasons we won 10 games was the offensive output and production. I think Rob has done a nice job with the staff and with the players on this team so that we're able to be in this position. Like I told Rob, selfishly I'm glad you're staying. Because if he were not here, I might not be here.

When you look back at that first Pittsburgh game, do you still wonder how that happened or can you understand how it happened?

Well, I wonder to a degree how it happened, but also I can understand. As the game unfolded, when a position doesn't play well - and generally the quarterback position didn't play well in that game - that doesn't mean the whole team is down the tubes. If you can get that position to play better, you have other weapons and other players on the team that should be able to produce. That's kind of what happened.

Did you go into that game thinking you were prepared to make a change at quarterback or was that a spur-of-the-moment decision in the second quarter?

That was a spur-of-the-moment thing. You just get a feel about what's happening, a gut feeling that I need to do something. That was the feeling - I need to try something else. After a quarter and a half, I thought, OK, D.A. [Derek Anderson], you try.

The next day, did you have to be talked into making that trade [of Charlie Frye] or were you gung-ho about it?

The trade came. The opportunity was there. We had talked all along about the possibility of moving somebody because we'd just given up a No. 1 and we've got this young kid [Quinn] here, we've got two young quarterbacks, and all along there was talk about moving somebody. We just didn't know which one it would be. When that trade came up, we just decided to move Charlie because there was more interest in Charlie because D.A. didn't have a track record, whereas Charlie had played and won some games.

The way Anderson played, and the way Charlie had played in camp, it looks like that competition brought out the worst in them rather than the best. Fair to say?

If you look at what happened to D.A. since that first game, then you might say it brought out the worst in him rather than the best. But when you have a competition, you have to let them compete. If you don't, you might not know what you have. I don't know any other way than to let them compete. Now, rather than dividing it up equally as I did, I might have said, 'OK, you take all the reps this week' and give the other guy all the reps the next week. But what happens generally there, it's never equal then because what happens in this game and that game could be totally different. Now I'm at the third preseason game and they're telling me 'I don't have a fair shot. So now you have to give me a fair shot.' I tried to make it equal.

How do you plan on handling it in training camp next year?

It's a totally different situation. Derek won 10 games and Derek is the starter. He will be the starter in training camp. And we will continue to prepare Brady to be ready to play. The thing about training camp and preseason, we can give [Quinn] more reps than we can during the regular season once we start game-planning. So he's got to try to take advantage of those reps as he can. He is still one play away. To be totally honest with you, how often does a quarterback stay on his feet through 16 games? Not many times does that happen. I'm not trying to jinx us, but quarterbacks take a beating in this league. And generally you've got to have two of them that you feel good about and know when one goes down, you can put the other one in and have a chance.

What's unique is both these guys are in the same age bracket and both have their best football ahead of them. There aren't many quarterback rosters like that.

It is a unique circumstance. Because in today's game that doesn't happen very often. I don't know how long it will happen here or we can keep it like that. But I think at least for another year, we should be able to keep it that way. And let's say something happens and the backup has to play. Then he goes in and plays. Then down the road we'll have a decision to make. Just like San Diego had to make a decision with their quarterback situation. And when we get to that bridge, get ready to cross it, then we'll make the decision on what's best for the Browns at that time.

To the other side of the ball. Three years in the making, your defense, you've said, is not as good as it has to be. Is it getting to be a finished product?

It's a long way from that. When we talk about finished product, being the defensive coordinator where I won three Super Bowls, that's where I'd like for this defense to get to. And we're a long way away from it right now. So we've got some work to do to get there.

Are you surprised you're that far away from it after three years?

Well, I anticipated that we would have progressed more after three years, because I think there is some talent on the defensive side, more so than we did the first two years. But as you look at it, a lot of different things are involved. But I don't think that's an excuse. We have to do a lot better.

I want to revisit the [Kamerion] Wimbley draft choice. Obviously he and [Haloti] Ngata [of Baltimore] will be great players. Conceptually you chose to get the pass rusher rather than the run stopper. You come from Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. I think Parcells would have chosen the linebacker and Belichick the run stopper. Explain your choice.

I think our team needed a pass rusher more. We didn't have the pass rusher on the team, whereas Baltimore has several pass rushers on their team, so adding a run stopper filled their need. I felt our need was more a pass rusher, someone who could have a dynamic impact on a game on all three downs. Sometimes a run stopper can only have an impact on first and second down. A pass rusher has a three-down impact.

Wimbley always seemed to be chasing till the end of the game, but his [sack] numbers were down. Does he need to develop more moves?

Yeah, we've talked to him about developing counter-moves that might help him be more productive in the sack total. A lot of times pass rushers get graded by the sacks they get, but they also impact the game when they don't get sacks, by getting hits on the quarterback, by making the quarterback move from the spot. One year [Dwight] Freeney [of Indianapolis] had three sacks, but everybody feared him because of what he brings to the table and they know what his abilities are. I think when people look at our team from the pass-rush standpoint, I think they feel they need to try to do something about Wimbley. They see he is always working from the first quarter to the fourth quarter.

Why do you favor the 3-4 defense over the 4-3?

One, I have a better knowledge of the 3-4. And I've been in this 3-4 for many years and it's been successful on several different teams. It's gone to the Super Bowl on several different teams. And then once you decide you're going to go with this scheme, then if you change your mind and try to go the other way, the personnel becomes an issue. I think if you have an established team, it's easier to make a transition like that. But if you're trying to build your team and the personnel has basically been eroded, to change in the middle of it, I think you hurt yourself.

Joe Gibbs retiring pushes you closer to one of the oldest coaches in the league, maybe the oldest. You're about to get a contract extension. How long do you see yourself coaching.

I learned this from Parcells a long time ago. He goes year to year. I think your success has something to do with it. We coaches, it's in our blood. And if we're doing good, we want to do good again. After winning this year, I'd like to win next year. And after that, let's look at it and see. The only time I ever put a number on my coaching career was when I first started. When I first started, I said I'm going to give it five years to see if I like it or not when I got my first college job at Western Kentucky. Well, how many years later is it and I'm still coaching? Twenty-three in the NFL and 10 in college.

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:tgrossi@plaind.com, 216-999-4670

Wow.............there is a ton of information in this article. Nice of you to post it on the existing thread, but w/so much information, it probably deserves a thread of its own. I'm curious as to how people will react to it and what parts they will ignore. *L*

I have no say, but I think this thread is losing steam. Might be a good idea to start a new thread. He comes across as quite candid in the interview. In addition to the DA stuff, the parts about how him and Savage work together is very interesting. As is the section about the D. I gotta admit.......it's one damn good interview.

I wanted to touch on also about Grantham, RAC and the defense. It's true that after you told me that thing, RAC did indeed get more involved and the defense improved. But I agree with Vers that Grantham's schemes seem ok.

U still feel that way now that all that mess about TG is out and he's gone?

I think when you try to put people together who are new people and have not necessarily worked together before, and if you don't know everybody, you just don't know how it's going to work. Because everybody has an ego and different personalities, and sometimes personalities clash. If you have a situation where personalities are clashing, then with the players, the group those guys are trying to manage, I think those personalities run over. So sometimes it's hard to get everybody to be cohesive if everybody is not on the same page. And I think these guys we got in here are doing a good job of being on the same page and working together, and I think that helps.

Wonder who that might be?
Well the ones who are clashing and have clashed are now gone..buh bye..

I don't need more influence because just about everything gets discussed. Phil will come in and talk to me about we need to do about this or about a player. He will ask me. Generally there's a consensus when a decision is made. In the draft when Brady Quinn was still available, he asked, 'What do you think about trading our No. 1 to get Quinn?' I said, 'Hey, from where we had that guy on the board, that's not a bad deal.' As it worked out, we ended up with him and it turned out to be a pretty good deal for the Browns.


Lame duck coach...puppet..figure head...a lot of posters say that mess about Rac and it was wrong..Of course I doubt any will alter their opinion which is fine for them but it still paints a good picture on Rac's relationship with Phil..
Of course Phil said it himself but others said: '' Well whats he supposed to say?"..blah blah blah..

In fact I wonder if Gross-me-out ate any crow..Mr.I-WANT-JIM TRESSELL ..Tony the hypocrite , he was one of the loudest media people wanting a coaching change..
Case in point..here's Gross-me-out trying his usual backhanded tactics..

To end this subject, Savage . . . indicated he intends to begin talks about a contract extension. Does it bother you that [offensive coordinator Rob] Chudzinski got an extension first?

I think I woulda responded: oes it bother U to have to interview me after U wanted me run outta town?"
And again...

The next day, did you have to be talked into making that trade [of Charlie Frye] or were you gung-ho about it?


Still trying to find out if Rac is resistant and doesn't want to make change..

The trade came. The opportunity was there. We had talked all along about the possibility of moving somebody because we'd just given up a No. 1 and we've got this young kid [Quinn] here, we've got two young quarterbacks, and all along there was talk about moving somebody. We just didn't know which one it would be. When that trade came up, we just decided to move Charlie because there was more interest in Charlie because D.A. didn't have a track record, whereas Charlie had played and won some games.


Thats for all those who CLAIMED PHIL has to FORCE RAC TO make changes...or he WAS TOO LOYAL to everyone...

That was a spur-of-the-moment thing. You just get a feel about what's happening, a gut feeling that I need to do something. That was the feeling - I need to try something else. After a quarter and a half, I thought, OK, D.A. [Derek Anderson], you try.

So no one told Rac to yank Frye..he MADE THAT DECISION himself, and then it was on to move Frye out..

How do you plan on handling it in training camp next year?


It's a totally different situation. Derek won 10 games and Derek is the starter. He will be the starter in training camp. And we will continue to prepare Brady to be ready to play.

LOL..no coin toss...should keep certain people from getting strokes and busting gaskets around here and in the media
I have no problem if this what ACTUALLY happens..we'll see...

Now the defense...

Are you surprised you're that far away from it after three years?


Well, I anticipated that we would have progressed more after three years, because I think there is some talent on the defensive side, more so than we did the first two years. But as you look at it, a lot of different things are involved. But I don't think that's an excuse. We have to do a lot better.

Racspeak...I had a ego-manic running it and wouldn't go with the plan..so I'm ticked...

I want to revisit the [Kamerion] Wimbley draft choice. Obviously he and [Haloti] Ngata [of Baltimore] will be great players. Conceptually you chose to get the pass rusher rather than the run stopper. You come from Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. I think Parcells would have chosen the linebacker and Belichick the run stopper. Explain your choice.


I think our team needed a pass rusher more. We didn't have the pass rusher on the team, whereas Baltimore has several pass rushers on their team, so adding a run stopper filled their need. I felt our need was more a pass rusher, someone who could have a dynamic impact on a game on all three downs. Sometimes a run stopper can only have an impact on first and second down. A pass rusher has a three-down impact.

I accepted that after I heard the choice..even though I wanted the run stuffer...

Why do you favor the 3-4 defense over the 4-3?

One, I have a better knowledge of the 3-4. And I've been in this 3-4 for many years and it's been successful on several different teams.
I LIKE IT ALOT

Good read and a lot of insight into Rac..