DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Article on Cleveland's Offense

http://browns.scout.com/2/614339.html

Joe's Take: Chud for the Offense

By Joe Brownlee
OBR Columnist
Posted Jan 30, 2007

The Browns are taking a gamble with their choice of offensive coordinator, according to our pal Joe Brownlee. Joe thinks that the hiring could pay off or help usher in the end of careers for members of the Browns brain trust...


Back in the late 1960s, there was a TV show about a high-powered lawyer called Judd For The Defense. The Cleveland Browns now have “Chud for the Offense”.

The Browns have hired Rob Chudzinski as their offensive coordinator. Chudzinski was the tight ends coach under Butch Davis when the Browns drafted Kellen Winslow. He was also Winslow’s coach at the University of Miami. The Browns wanted to retain “Chud”, but he left with the uncertainty over the coaching staff after Butch Davis resigned during the 2004 season.

This is an interesting hire. Chudzinski has Ohio ties, which has been a consistent theme with player selections and hires under Phil Savage. I’d love to see him succeed. But this seems like a very risky move to me given the current situation in Berea. Let me elaborate.

First, I think you have to realize that the Browns have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to the 2007 season. While the Browns are publicly saying that Romeo Crennel is their man, most observers see Crennel as being on a short leash at minimum, to perhaps being a full-blown lame duck. This limits who the Browns can go after. Many assistants, especially those with some experience, are going to shy away from a situation such as the one going on in Cleveland. If you come here, there could be a new head coach in 2008, so what is the future? That’s not to mention the fact that the Browns aren’t probably considered a talent-laden team on the rise in national circles.

So, when people bring up other potential names that the Browns should have considered for the offensive coordinator position, not everyone who would be seeking this sort of job would be dying to come to Cleveland. From that perspective, perhaps taking a chance on a young up-and-comer who grew up with the Browns is a good move. On the other hand, given that Crennel is on thin ice and that Savage may not be much better off, this is a risk.

Next, let’s consider the impact on the existing staff. Jeff Davidson was never officially given the title of Offensive Coordinator, but he was acting in that role. The Browns didn’t want to lose him last offseason, so when New England made overtures toward hiring him, the Browns gave him the title Assistant Head Coach to keep him here. Hiring Chudzinski was a vote of no confidence for Davidson, and effectively ended any chance to retain him. The Browns were saying that they wanted him to stay, but anyone who understands organizational politics knows that hiring Chudzinski was one that showed Davidson the door.

Don’t get me wrong here – in my opinion, Davidson did nothing special with the offensive line, nor did he do wonders with the offense. He was somewhat better than Maurice Carthon, but that’s hardly high praise. I’m OK with losing Davidson. But I do think it speaks to the stability and decision making process of the Browns organization to do a complete about face on Davidson in less than a year.

But even these issues aren’t my biggest objection to this move. My problem is one of personnel.

Two years ago, the Browns hired Romeo Crennel and he decided to install a 3-4 defense. That is a huge change in philosophy, especially in regard to player selection. The Browns let go of a number of serviceable players to rebuild the defense for the 3-4. After two years, the Browns still don’t have all the players they need to run it effectively. From the early reports, Chudzinski favors a more attacking style of offense. I’m more than OK with that. Since the days of Bill Belichick, the Browns have run a very conservative, don’t-make-a-mistake offense. I’d be happy with a stylistic change. But, do the Browns have the personnel to run the style of offense Chudzinski wants effectively?

Let’s start with the quarterback. In many ways, the Browns are still sorting out what Frye can do, but if there is one thing I believe Frye proved in 2006, he is not going to be able to run a vertical offense. I’m not arguing here as some do that Frye can’t throw deep. He threw deep at times this past year, and with decent success. But when Frye had two open options, one underneath and the other deeper, he invariably chose the underneath option. His tendency is toward the horizontal, not the vertical. If Chudzinski asks Frye to be more vertical in his game, it could be a big problem.

When Derek Anderson played, he showed more of tendency to favor the vertical game. Unfortunately, Anderson is also tends to be inaccurate with his throws. In a more vertical offense, that will lead to interceptions, something that proved to be Anderson’s undoing in college. We saw some of that in the Tampa Bay game this year. I don’t see Anderson as the answer in this type of offense, either, though he might be a reasonable bench player.

Ken Dorsey? Please.

Then there’s the offensive line. Part of the problem with the offense in 2006 was that the quarterback had to use a lot of three step drops because of the lack of protection. That led to a very horizontal passing attack. To go more vertical, you are going to have to be able to throw five and seven step drops. The 2006 line could not handle that. On the other hand, the Browns will probably at most return three starters on the line, and probably more likely only two. The line needs to be rebuilt anyway. Can that be accomplished in this one offseason, especially considering the holes on the defensive line and in the secondary? Color me skeptical.

Phil Savage said in his State of the Browns address that the offense would be built around Winslow and Braylon Edwards. Add Jurevicus and Heiden to the mix and the Browns have some nice receivers to use in more of an attacking style of offense. Good enough, but who will get them the ball? And will that person be able to remain standing long enough to deliver the ball?

I’m just a fan. I’m not privy to the closed-door machinations in Berea. But it appears to me that hiring Chudzinski and making the changes being described don’t look like the kinds of decisions designed to bring the Browns immediate success in the 2007 season. These may be good moves in the long run. The problem for both Savage and Crennel is that if the bottom line results don’t improve in 2007, there may not be a long run for one or both of them.

Given the restlessness of the fan base, coupled with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of faith in the leadership of the organization, this move seems to be a huge gamble. As outlined above, there may not have been a lot of other options, but it seems like this move will either make the organization look like geniuses or it will blow up in their faces.

To borrow a line from the Eagles, I’m thinking

thanks for the read

Quote:

---

This is an interesting hire. Chudzinski has Ohio ties, which has been a consistent theme with player selections and hires under Phil Savage.

---

Personally, I have no problem hiring guys with Ohio ties.. All things being equal,,, you got two candidates, skills and intangibles are equal, one is from ohio and the other isn't, sure, I'll take the ohio guy first.... why not?

Quote:

---

Next, let’s consider the impact on the existing staff. Jeff Davidson was never officially given the title of Offensive Coordinator, but he was acting in that role. The Browns didn’t want to lose him last offseason, so when New England made overtures toward hiring him, the Browns gave him the title Assistant Head Coach to keep him here.

---

Again, how much cred to you give a guy that can't get his facts straight, it was the Jets that came after Davidson last season.

Quote:

---

Don’t get me wrong here – in my opinion, Davidson did nothing special with the offensive line, nor did he do wonders with the offense.

---

Let's be honest here, as far as davidsons work with the Oline, he didn't exactly have the second coming of the hogs to work with, but what he had, he couldn't even get on the same page... as the OC, he didn't exactly turn things up a notch either... he may have been loved by his players, but he didn't do anything for me... Frankly, I'm glad he's gone.

Quote:

---

But when Frye had two open options, one underneath and the other deeper, he invariably chose the underneath option. His tendency is toward the horizontal, not the vertical.

---

Ok, how does this reporter know if that's not the plan. Just playing the devil here, but who's to say that Charlie didn't want to go vertical, but the play called was underneath? When are reporters gonna ask the right questions.

Quote:

---

I’m just a fan. I’m not privy to the closed-door machinations in Berea.

---

But But But

Quote:

---

By Joe Brownlee
OBR Columnist
Posted Jan 30, 2007

---

He's a columnist at OBR,,,,, Wierd to say that least. I honestly can't tell if this guy is a professional writer, or just a fan that gets to write on OBR. So I don't want to trash him to hard..

But geez, here's another Mr. Negative... with every negative spin someone puts out there, it's easy to find a positive spin...

Quote:

---

First, I think you have to realize that the Browns have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to the 2007 season. While the Browns are publicly saying that Romeo Crennel is their man, most observers see Crennel as being on a short leash at minimum, to perhaps being a full-blown lame duck. This limits who the Browns can go after. Many assistants, especially those with some experience, are going to shy away from a situation such as the one going on in Cleveland. If you come here, there could be a new head coach in 2008, so what is the future? That’s not to mention the fact that the Browns aren’t probably considered a talent-laden team on the rise in national circles.

---

On the other hand, an assistant coach with head coaching aspirations might see this as a perfect opportunity. If Crennell gets fired in mid-season, there's the chance for one of these guys to be named interim head coach or even promoted to head coach after the season. Just a thought.

the guy says RAC changed the 3-4 and b/c of that got rid of "serviceable" players... WE STILL HAVE SERVICEABLE PLAYERS!! lol.. nothing has changed.. and actually, now we have a few potential stars in Sean Jones, Wimbley, and DQ.....

Seriously, lets sign all of our servicable players to HUGE contracts.

The mroe I read from the OBR, the more I don't learn anything.

Ok, so I'm not completly off base when I say that this article does little to enlighten us Right?...

OBR is just a glorified fan site. Nothing more.

not one bit.

They have no clue at all. Alot of people were giving the Browns some love until the injuries started piling up. If, and only if, we can stabilize the offensive line then I don't see why we can't be 8-8 in 2007. It won't matter who is at quarterback until the line problem is fixed. Why did this guy spend all his time harping on quarterbacks when that's really the least of our problems going into next year? It wouldn't matter if Paul Brown himself descended from the sky and was named Head Coach, if we don't have our offensive line fixed Cleveland will be a coach's personal Hell. I figure it's because he has no clue at all.

If you don't control the line of scrimmage you don't control the game.

J.

[quote
Two years ago, the Browns hired Romeo Crennel and he decided to install a 3-4 defense. That is a huge change in philosophy, especially in regard to player selection. The Browns let go of a number of serviceable players to rebuild the defense for the 3-4. After two years, the Browns still don’t have all the players they need to run it effectively.

---

Who are these GREAT servicable players that the Browns had.
Fat Money
Courtney Brown who can't stay healthy.
Ebanezer Ecuban
Whooppee, that is bunch of real superstars.
The Browns did not get rid of ONE player that I would want back.
NOT ONE.
Sure we have had DL problems.
We had them before, too.
Savage and RAC did what was necessary if they are going to rebuild this team.
Patience, people, patience.

The only player I think MIGHT (probably not) have been able to re-structure and stay was Warren, everyone else. Good riddance

Quote:

---

The only thing I take exception to are the "servicable" players that we let go. Seriously, just how good were those guys?

---

I don't have a list of those players, but I have to wonder how many are still playing anywhere certainly a few are.

The thing that gets me is this, why would any organization want a team full of "serviceable players".. I mean, every team has some,,, they serve a purpose and are only there until a better guy comes along,,, Right?

Your right, big Ted played hard, didn't get hurt, or complain.

A true pro...which is why we brought him here.

Joe "the fan" Browniee's, entire premise is off. He assumes an attacking offense equates a strictly vertical one. Take away that assumption and his argument whithers to dust. What Chud said was, he intends on instituting an attacting offense given the offensive weapons and strengths he has at his disposal, (be it through the run, TEs, WRs, etc.). He also said he needs to evaluate and determine what those weapons and strengths are and how best to use them. He also is aware new pieces will be added to the puzzle, (be it QB, OL, RB, WR or whatever.) If I remembered correctly, he defined attacking offense as one that took advantage of what defenses give, (and they all give something,) and/or they're weaknesses. I assume that means things like short drops and quick passes if Ds stack the box, a power running game, going deep against a weak secondary, mismatches against TEs and so on. What I took away from Chud's remarks was that through hard work, study and game planning the offense would take on an attacking style. I'm pretty sure he never said anything about becoming a vertical offense or that a vertical offense was the only way you could have an attacking style offense. The WCO, for example, is an attacking style offense that does not rely on the vertical game.

As far as the politics of the situation goes, I could give a rat's ass. I'm so sick of it all. I just want these guys to be able to go to work and get their jobs done. We had problems on the O side of the ball all year, not least of which was due to a patchwork O-line. The FO has addressed the admin part of it, I assume they'll continue to add talent to the roster, what more do people want? It's almost as if failure is expected. Should we have a less than stellar season next year, fans and media will be calling for RAC's head once again, even though just about everyone and their mother knows it's not going to all be fixed this season, we have too many holes and not enough draft picks/FA money to fix them all. Maybe we'll have a better than expected season and everyone can shut up about RAC's future. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but it's really going to [censored] me off if we go three years into a program that is showing progress on the field just to start all over again in '08.

I agree with much of what was written.

I know some disagree when people start adding things together to arrive at a conclusion, but in my opinion that is much more accurate than subtracting things which is what many want to do to arrive at the opposite conclusion.

Quote:

---

I'd point to the Steelers hiring a 4-3 guy who's said he'll stick with the 3-4 as evidence that hiring a new guy doesn't mean a complete tear-down.

---

Only on caviat there Toad,,, the Steeler defense was working and clicking on all cylinders,,, It could have been why fix what isn't broken.. The other caviat is that Cowher wasn't fired, he stepped down so there wasn't, or at least didn't appear to be any reason to change anything.

Just food for thought.

There are two cases in point right there, how continuous do you think the Squeelers and the Phins will be this year? (So freaking glad we didn't hire Saban.) Interesting in that they are two extremes with the same problem, one with 15 years of continuity and one two years into a rebuild. It'll be interesting watching how both clubs deal with the changes.

I'll still be surprised if the Steelers don't convert to a 4-3 within a year or two. If Tomlin believes strongly in it, he'll bring his own scheme in before too long.

Perhaps as the players he currently has either retire, leave via FA or get cut,,, then when it's time to reload, he may just switch to a 4-3.. That would be the time to do it if that's the direction he wants to go...

I bet Steeler fans won't care as long as it works

I hate to use this as my only reasoning for not looking too much into this article, but the minute someone says that Phil Savage's job may be on the line just turns me off from the article. I understand "outsiders" thinking that Crennel is on a short leash, even though they really do not have a good perspective on our organization, I can see how it would look. But Phil Savage is one of the more successful scouts and GM guys in this league, you can't even tell me seriously that we would be looking to get rid of him.

JMHO, but that would be a serious mistake and I can't see our organization taking things THAT far.

Quote:

---

Phil Savage is one of the more successful scouts and GM guys in this league,

---

Care to elaborate on the one of the more successful GM's part?

Of course you're right in that continuity for continuity sake would be a stupid philosophy, especially for a team showing no improvement on the field. I guess my fear would be, (assuming improvement continues,) losing continuity within the playbook, (terminologies, plays that do work, blitz packages, etc.,) between the players within the (established) system on both sides of the ball, established accountabilites, routines, and so forth. Players in the fourth year of a system need to do a lot less thinking about what it is they're doing than players under a new coach with a new way of doing things. As I stated, this assumes improvement continues on the field. If it doesn't all bets are off.

I still believe Anderson can run the vertical passing better than Frye can. But Frye has things that Anderson doesn't. Anderson has things that Frye doesn't too. Frye is mobile and that is kinda important in this offensive line. Anderson showed me more pocket prescence, and made some good throws because of it.

Fans keep complaining about Frye locking in on one receiver. Well, every QB does once in awhile. But Anderson, did that some also...just not as much

haaaaaaa..........We're heading right back into the 2003 QB controversy...

I think that one of the things that is overlooked is that the primary problem with the Browns has been the ineffectiveness of the offense. 26th last year and 31st this year. It is recognized that RAC's strength is with the 3-4 defense and there is a natural tendancy for RAC to gravitate towards defensive issues.

Mo was probably given a bigger leash with the offense than what was deemed appropriate. One of the criticisms of Mo 1980s Giants offense was that it was very conservative. That and Mo's playcalling resulted in offensive inefficiencies. This year, despite the return of BE and KW2, the offense was worse, not better.

Davidson was a product of the NE offensive philosphy. More open yes, but certainly not a model of attack. Chud offered a different approach, one that differs from the Giants/Pats/Ravens approach to the offense. RAC and Savage must have liked what they heard and went with a Cam Cameron approach to the offense. Personally, I have seen that this offense can be effective, sometimes the SD offense was critisized for shutting it down too soon (Martyball). This offense was effective with Brees and Rivers at QB, and made pro-bowlers out of numerous players. Neal was a journeyman FB and now has 2 pro-bowls. Gates is considered a premier TE. Maybe there is something to work with (Smith/Vickers and KW2). Unleashed the offense put up more than twice the points that the Browns were able to muster this season.

I think Chud deserves a chance. Will the Browns have the same success, probably not to begin, but there may be pieces and schemes that can be more sucessfull then the crap that was being run in Cleveland.

The Browns had to blow the offensive side up. Status quo even with Davidson as OC would have been an incremental improvement.

Quote:

---

If RAC has yet to prove he can do the things required to be a good head coach (and no, I didn't use any part of the word "win" in that sentence), I don't see a reason to suggest he will this year.

---

I'm not sure I know what you mean here, and not to debate the RAC issue, I'll just say that once again, it's going to come down to execution. It's been the problem in Cleveland since the return and only this past year did I see slight glimmers of improvement. We still sucked, but we sucked with purpose. RAC's future will depend on whether these guys, (with a revamped line, maybe a new QB, maybe a new RB, and some help on the defensive front,) pull together and start putting it together on the field, consistently, 60 minutes every week. I saw signs of this potential, I was really encouraged by the special teams play and the ability to take down a couple playoff teams, and I think we'll see a better version next year, but I think if you interupt this flow (3-4, 4-3, 46, aside) by bringing in a new HC in year 4, we're sitting around twiddling our thumbs once again while they retool, re-staff, weed out malcontents, get over the fact that we failed yet again under another new regime, find new players, learn the new system, get it together on the field and start winning. Could we have a miracle Payton/Mangini season in '08? Who knows. Will Cowher come in and save the day? Same anwer. (Alot of people seem to be pinning their hopes on that one.) Whatever the case, I'm not disillusioned by what I saw this year, I think given the circumstances, it could've been much worse. I'd like to see this through at least through '08 because I really think they're building something here and I think RAC is a big part of that. Maybe I'll be singing a different tune in Jan '08, we'll see.

Quote:

---

... when Frye had two open options, one underneath and the other deeper, he invariably chose the underneath option. His tendency is toward the horizontal, not the vertical. If Chudzinski asks Frye to be more vertical in his game, it could be a big problem...

...because of the lack of protection. That led to a very horizontal passing attack. To go more vertical, you are going to have to be able to throw five and seven step drops. The 2006 line could not handle that.

---

So which is it? Does Frye have a "tendency" to be horizontal? Or does the offensive line prevent anything else?

If Frye does have a tendency toward the underneath option could it be because he doesn't trust he'll have the extra moment to survey the field. After all, he rarely does. That's not to let Charlie off the hook. He has holes in his game that haven't been addressed yet. But then again, like everyone else in the Browns organization, coaches included, he hasn't exactly had much of a chance with the way things are.

We're not going to see Charlie Frye running an attack style offense until the offensive line is solid. On the other hand, we're not likely to see a solid offensive line anytime in the near future.

Still, if the Browns are at least trying to score points instead of playing it so safe and predictable I'm all for that.

Better to go down swinging.