|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 |
I don't know. You have to give Mangini some credit for keeping the players motivated to play hard in this craphole of a season. They definitely don't quit and I for one wouldn't mind seeing what he can do with some more talent on the roster. It would have been very easy for them to throw in the towel and just go through the motions, but they haven't done that.
On the other hand, if he's not on the same page as Holmgren in most areas, he needs to go ASAP.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,810 |
Quote:
On the other hand, if he's not on the same page as Holmgren in most areas, he needs to go ASAP.
jfan...good point..
Is Mangini prepared for all the changes Holmgren is going to make?
It's very likely that Mangini will have a new OC along with most of the offensive coaches being replaced. A new offensive playbook as well as changes in offensive personnel. Some of Mangini's Jet's guys will likely be gone.
On defense, Rob Ryan and his defensive coaching staff may be fired with a 4-3 defense being installed.
Mangini is not going to have power over personnel moves either. If Mangini can live with a complete loss of power and just do his head coaching duties, who am I to say he won't be retained...who knows?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
L
Perhaps I missed it - please - inform me on what the Browns need to do to better the team this year? In fact, you're the gm, what do you do to improve the team for Sunday? Again, perhaps I missed it in all your griping posts.......if I did, my bad. But fill me in - make this team better for Sunday........and you do it, how?
Jango - You've had a week to come up with a reply: Tell me, tell us, exactly what you would do to make the Browns better for this Sunday and the rest of the year. You obviously hate everything about the current oranization, so:
Assume you're the gm of the Browns. How do you improve this team this year? Instead of griping, tell us how you'd do it. Specifics, please.
I'll be waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10 |
For what it's worth, 5 minutes ago on SportsCenter, John Clayton said that the tide may be turning for Mangini. He said that Lerner has asked Holmgren to think about keeping Mangini for another season and that Holmgren appears to be considering it. He said that Holmgren will access the situation and likely request that Mangini make some staff changes and as long as Mangini is good with that, he will likely be allowed to stay on next season.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Quote:
He said that Lerner has asked Holmgren to think about keeping Mangini for another season
I don't believe that.
If Randy were that sort of owner, Holmgren wouldn't have taken this job.
The Browns are worth over 1 billion dollars - Randy is doing everything he can to retain this value. - That means hiring Holmgren, paying him handsomely, and allowing him to do whatever he wants WITHOUT GETTING IN THE WAY AT ALL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
You made that up. Or Clayton made that up. Or Holmgren is just not going to say anything negative about Mangini while the season is still being played. Why would he do anything less than add encouragement?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
nrtu
Lerner asking Holmgren to consider keeping EM is no different than the Board of Directors asking the new company President to consider keeping the CEO when others think/thought the CEO should be kept/fired.
This is not Lerner sticking his nose in MH's decision-making freedoms. Good businesses run this way.
Now...if Lerner mandates that MH keep EM...then we have a problem. I cannot imagine such is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
It's a very important distinction. There's a huge, fundamental difference between wanting a new guy to consider all options and mandating that an option be ennacted upon.
Holmgren may need to watch film on the QB's, but you can bet he's pretty-well made up his mind on Mangini, as that opera has played itself out in a very public way.
The only way I see Mangini lasting another season is if Holmgren has a grander scheme in place. Such a plan could include a guy he wants who can't come to the team yet (such as Gruden) or even an eventual return to coaching himself. In the case of the latter, it would make sense to let Mangini take another beating then return to the sideline once the team has acquired the players Holmgren would want.
Don't forget that Lerner gave Holmgren the leeway to do anything he wants.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
j/c
I was happy that we didn't lose to the Steelers and didn't lose to the Chiefs - hard to say we beat those teams really - and started to re-think my Mangini-must-go mindset.
Then I start to think about:
The QB competition debacle(s)...big, big minus
2nd rd draft picks who can't get active on gameday on a team devoid of talent...huge minus either from talent eval or EM being a stubborn mule...which is worse?
A late season OLB waiver pickup who is better than any other OLB on our entire team - including guys on IR...a minus because the guys we had at the start are/were bad and...a plus because EM saw a player here.
A late season PS promotion who is the best TE on our entire team - including guys on IR....a minus because the guys we had at the start are/were bad and...a plus because EM saw a player here...where was this guy at the start of the year?
Jerome H inactive shortly after getting 122 or so yards against the Bengals...inactive...he did not put on pads or cleats that day...then 286 yards a few weeks later. The fact that RAC didn't play him either DOES NOT even remotely justify EM being clueless enough to follow RAC's lead. RACs decision-making was legendarily horrible. Enormous minus even if JH publicly announced his refusal to block. /sarcasm on the blocking part
Multiple decisions by EM to punt on 4th and 1 or 4th and short from inside the opponent's 50 when we are 1-8 or worse...minus
Taking a knee at halftime from our own 30 or so yard line with 30 some seconds left in a season where we were 2-11 and running the ball at will...maybe the minus that broke the camel's back for me.
And last but not least....hiring and keeping an OC who has no clue. Minus.
But here is the salve on the wounds...if MH thinks EM gets another shot...I will be ok with it. Funny how a little credibility from a guy who has been on winning teams for many years can soothe the savage beast.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
While all excellent examples if you're in the pro fire-Mangini camp, there's one which I would consider to be THE most damning in terms of Holmgren's evaluation:
The termination of his hand-picked GM AND front office person. I forget her name, but the one that was canned before Kok.
Lerner had to spearhead those firings. When he and Holmgren sit down to evaluate Mangini, those facts are going to be at the forefront of Mike's considerations.
Besides, let's call the wins against the Steelers and the Chiefs what they really are: Fluky.
Cribbs essentially won both of those games. We got 8 fluke sacks because Arians refused to run in terrible weather conditions while allowing Ryan to school him with blitzes that freed up guys who have done jack-crap all year to get multiple-sacks.
Those wins don't show an improved team. All they show is effort on part of the players and a helluva gameplan by our DC, who's defense turned around the next week and laid an egg. The QB play was bad both weeks, and only a career-day by perennial backup Harrison made the offense look good.
There's very little evidence to support keeping Mangini. Keep in mind this opinion is coming from a guy that was very-much in favor of his hire, and also who has defended him against unjustified media and fan attacks.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10 |
Quote:
You made that up. Or Clayton made that up. Or Holmgren is just not going to say anything negative about Mangini while the season is still being played. Why would he do anything less than add encouragement?
I may not have a lot of posts on here, but I do not just make things up; it was on SportsCenter. I do not always agree with Clayton, but i do not see it as beyond reason that Lerner "asked" Holmgren to consider anything. He would have inside information into a lot of Mangini's moves (Winslow, Edwards, etc) and Lerner may have been the one that terminated Kokinis (and not Mangini) based on something else occurring. And you can bet the Holmgren has said information if it exists. Just my .02
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10 |
Toad, i was in the pro-Mangini camp also. That said, the prospect of an Offensive-minded Coach who has MH's mind to tap is quite intriguing. I would love to see the Browns field a top-tier offense like MH ran in GB. That said (x2  ) I would not object to giving Mangini another season either. You'd get no objection outta me if the Browns became a smash-mouth Offense with a attacking defense that cannot be run on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
It's entirely plausible to have a "smash-mouth" offense run out of the WCO scheme. All it takes is some really good offensive linemen.
I know I'm digressing here from Mangini, but I've been critical of Steinbach in this offense as being overhyped in terms of production. However, if you put him into a scheme that takes advantage of what he does well, as opposed to asking him to do things he doesn't, then he becomes a good player again. The WCO is made for a guy who has his game based in finesse. With the way Mack has improved, we're really only a right guard and tackle away from being a really good line. It's my opinion we already have the perfect fullback, so we're close.
Now, getting back to Mangini, I think he's made just too many mistakes. His mind knows X's and O's, but his decisions leave too much to be questioned I'm afraid.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
but,but......... Mangini has also gotten the salary cap under control, obtained 11 draft picks, has found players like Moore and Roth and has given players like Harrison and Rubin the chance to show their talents. MoMass,Robo and DV still can not be called busts for certain. Koko and the other front office staff were fired and how is that all on Mangini? Some of the ex-Jets have played well if not spectacular and Costanzo and Trusnik have contributed. I'm playing devil's advocate for Willie  and how does anyone know for certain that: A. Mangini hasn't done as well as humanly possible B. that Mangini is gone for certain After all,. Mangini found a way to beat the Steelers with our practice squad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
I'm not going to count them up, but I'd say that mangini has done some good things as well..
But I look at the sentiment directed towards him and I wonder if any incoming GM/Pres would want to carry that baggage into the new regime.
Hey, if Holmgren thinks that he can make it work, then I'm good to go. Holmgren has the cred and knowledge that if he says it, I'd tend to believe..
Amazing the feeling a guy with Cred can give the fans.. isn't it?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 10 |
Quote:
It's entirely plausible to have a "smash-mouth" offense run out of the WCO scheme. All it takes is some really good offensive linemen.
I know I'm digressing here from Mangini, but I've been critical of Steinbach in this offense as being overhyped in terms of production. However, if you put him into a scheme that takes advantage of what he does well, as opposed to asking him to do things he doesn't, then he becomes a good player again. The WCO is made for a guy who has his game based in finesse. With the way Mack has improved, we're really only a right guard and tackle away from being a really good line. It's my opinion we already have the perfect fullback, so we're close.
Now, getting back to Mangini, I think he's made just too many mistakes. His mind knows X's and O's, but his decisions leave too much to be questioned I'm afraid.
I wonder if EM's ego would allow him to take guidance from Holmgren. I'm sure MH has a wealth of knowledge to provide to a protege. I agree with you on the WCO featuring a smash-mouth offense and Vickers is a stud. Also agree that Steinbach is a very good OG, just not in the power running style scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044 |
j/c Quote:
1. From the moment it appeared that Mike Holmgren would be the new Browns president, it was obvious to every member of the coaching staff that they are a long shot to return. The odds are a high-profile and Hall of Fame-caliber coach will bring in his own guy to run the team on the field. That's what usually happens when a new czar arrives in town. But to the credit of Eric Mangini and his staff, it has not affected their work. All season, they had been telling the players about the need to ignore distractions and do their jobs, and the coaches have modeled that behavior in this three-game winning streak.
2. It's no secret that I have been a supporter of Mangini. I have been very critical of his draft, especially how he handled the second round. The hiring of George Kokinis was a total mess, because it left the team without a general manager. These are not small mistakes, but they also are something that can be fixed with Holmgren's hiring, assuming he wants to keep Mangini.
3. Even if Mangini is fired, Holmgren can thank the coach for bringing in some desperately needed discipline. He also made some difficult personnel moves that will make life easier for next year's coach. Jamal Lewis was finished, and Mangini's only mistake was not following his instincts to cut him in training camp. Braylon Edwards had no interest in Mangini's approach, and other than 2007, Edwards has been an underachiever. In four games with the Browns this season, he had 10 catches -- 2.5 per game. For the Jets, it's 33 catches in 11 games -- 3.0. He has four touchdown catches, eight drops and he's simply another receiver.
4. I keep hearing from some fans and media members that Edwards is "an impact player." That was true in only 2007. In 2006, 2008 and 2009 -- his other three full, non-injury seasons -- he's averaged 54 catches and four TDs. It was his 2007 Pro Bowl season that was a fluke, not how he's played for most of his career.
5. While in a grumpy mood, if I hear one more time about the $1,700 fine for not paying for a bottle of water -- I swear, I'll scream. The guilty party was Edwards. The massive fine came after he ignored several warnings from coaches and broke numerous team rules. Finally, the coaches decided to send a message to Edwards and the rest of the team -- and suddenly, players discovered they could pay for their incidentals when they check out of hotels and also parked in their assigned spots in the training complex lot.
6. I've heard the Browns' last three victories dismissed by some critics because the opponents were Oakland and Kansas City, along with the slumping Steelers. It's like some people think this is the 2007 Browns, who were 10-6. That team was the anomaly. The Browns were 4-12, 10-6, 4-12, 6-10, 4-12 and 5-11 in the previous six years. Losing has stuck to this franchise like a wad of bubble gum to the bottom of a shoe. Any victory is significant, because there have been so few.
7. Yes, Kansas City (3-12) is a bad team. But I will never take away style points for beating a bad team. Oakland had won three of five, beating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Denver, before losing to the Browns Sunday. That 13-6 victory over a Pittsburgh team that supposedly quit? Well, the Steelers have beaten Green Bay and Baltimore in their last two games. The point is, a win is a win in the NFL, especially for a team that has lost so much.
8. While still in the grumpy mood, remember when the agents for some players (and the players themselves) complained about the coaches making them practice in the bad weather? Yes, there is a risk of injury. But games are played in bad weather, and the Browns are 3-0 in December. Could it be that those practices in the wind, rain and snow are paying off?
9. After being ranked in the top five for most penalties during the Romeo Crennel years, the Browns rank 30th this season. Rarely do you see them flagged for illegal motion, or the defense jumping offside. They rarely use timeouts because they can't get off a play in time. They don't get called for many personal fouls or stupid taunting penalties. Most games, they know like they know what they want to do -- even when they lack the talent to get it done.
10. None of this makes the Browns a playoff team next year. But when Holmgren looks at the roster, he'll find young, talented players in Joshua Cribbs, Joe Thomas, Jerome Harrison, Alex Mack and perhaps a few others. He'll also take over a team that has had a complete attitude transformation for the better, and that's the start to building a winner.
http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2009/12/eric_manginis_eventual_fate_sh.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
. I've heard the Browns' last three victories dismissed by some critics because the opponents were Oakland and Kansas City, along with the slumping Steelers.
Holmgren pretty much says he won't take that into consideration..he'll look at the entire Body of work to reach his decisions....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2009/12/eric_manginis_eventual_fate_sh.htmlEric Mangini's eventual fate shouldn't overshadow some positive results from the Cleveland Browns' 2009 season: Terry Pluto By Terry Pluto, The Plain Dealer December 28, 2009, 6:31PM CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Scribbles after Eric Mangini's Monday press conference... 1. From the moment it appeared that Mike Holmgren would be the new Browns president, it was obvious to every member of the coaching staff that they are a long shot to return. The odds are a high-profile and Hall of Fame-caliber coach will bring in his own guy to run the team on the field. That's what usually happens when a new czar arrives in town. But to the credit of Eric Mangini and his staff, it has not affected their work. All season, they had been telling the players about the need to ignore distractions and do their jobs, and the coaches have modeled that behavior in this three-game winning streak. 2. It's no secret that I have been a supporter of Mangini. I have been very critical of his draft, especially how he handled the second round. The hiring of George Kokinis was a total mess, because it left the team without a general manager. These are not small mistakes, but they also are something that can be fixed with Holmgren's hiring, assuming he wants to keep Mangini. 3. Even if Mangini is fired, Holmgren can thank the coach for bringing in some desperately needed discipline. He also made some difficult personnel moves that will make life easier for next year's coach. Jamal Lewis was finished, and Mangini's only mistake was not following his instincts to cut him in training camp. Braylon Edwards had no interest in Mangini's approach, and other than 2007, Edwards has been an underachiever. In four games with the Browns this season, he had 10 catches -- 2.5 per game. For the Jets, it's 33 catches in 11 games -- 3.0. He has four touchdown catches, eight drops and he's simply another receiver. 4. I keep hearing from some fans and media members that Edwards is "an impact player." That was true in only 2007. In 2006, 2008 and 2009 -- his other three full, non-injury seasons -- he's averaged 54 catches and four TDs. It was his 2007 Pro Bowl season that was a fluke, not how he's played for most of his career. 5. While in a grumpy mood, if I hear one more time about the $1,700 fine for not paying for a bottle of water -- I swear, I'll scream. The guilty party was Edwards. The massive fine came after he ignored several warnings from coaches and broke numerous team rules. Finally, the coaches decided to send a message to Edwards and the rest of the team -- and suddenly, players discovered they could pay for their incidentals when they check out of hotels and also parked in their assigned spots in the training complex lot. 6. I've heard the Browns' last three victories dismissed by some critics because the opponents were Oakland and Kansas City, along with the slumping Steelers. It's like some people think this is the 2007 Browns, who were 10-6. That team was the anomaly. The Browns were 4-12, 10-6, 4-12, 6-10, 4-12 and 5-11 in the previous six years. Losing has stuck to this franchise like a wad of bubble gum to the bottom of a shoe. Any victory is significant, because there have been so few. 7. Yes, Kansas City (3-12) is a bad team. But I will never take away style points for beating a bad team. Oakland had won three of five, beating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Denver, before losing to the Browns Sunday. That 13-6 victory over a Pittsburgh team that supposedly quit? Well, the Steelers have beaten Green Bay and Baltimore in their last two games. The point is, a win is a win in the NFL, especially for a team that has lost so much. 8. While still in the grumpy mood, remember when the agents for some players (and the players themselves) complained about the coaches making them practice in the bad weather? Yes, there is a risk of injury. But games are played in bad weather, and the Browns are 3-0 in December. Could it be that those practices in the wind, rain and snow are paying off? 9. After being ranked in the top five for most penalties during the Romeo Crennel years, the Browns rank 30th this season. Rarely do you see them flagged for illegal motion, or the defense jumping offside. They rarely use timeouts because they can't get off a play in time. They don't get called for many personal fouls or stupid taunting penalties. Most games, they know like they know what they want to do -- even when they lack the talent to get it done. 10. None of this makes the Browns a playoff team next year. But when Holmgren looks at the roster, he'll find young, talented players in Joshua Cribbs, Joe Thomas, Jerome Harrison, Alex Mack and perhaps a few others. He'll also take over a team that has had a complete attitude transformation for the better, and that's the start to building a winner.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Those are excellent comments by Pluto. Mangini continues to be probably one of the most polarizing coaches in recent history.
He TOTALLY screws the pooch with the people he brought in and how he screwed up the organizational chart and the QB situation early in the year.
The flipside is that as I'd said REPEATEDLY during the year, he was catching flack for doing the RIGHT things for no other reason than because it was easy to take shots at him. Yet for each supposed incident.............from practice-time injuries to sitting players who didn't want to put in the work (like Harrison) to the disciplinary actions against Edwards, Mangini-haters were WRONG, DEAD WRONG, and that includes the insinuations by the media.
I have to say that I've never encountered a guy whom I've defended so vehemently while simultaneously hammering him for the things he screwed up on.
Because the screwups were bad, and because it was HIS people that put the Holmgren in the position he's in, I can't see how he could survive.
I don't know where this article begins, but this is as good a place as any:
Quote:
« Carolina situation not ideal for Fox
Samuels likely to decide on future in February »
Jason La Canfora
It would be stunning if Browns kept Mangini
Posted: December 28th, 2009 | Jason La Canfora | Tags: Cleveland Browns, Eric Mangini, Mike Holmgren
The more I dig around into the situation in Cleveland, the more convinced I am that Eric Mangini’s first season with the Browns will be his last. In fact, at this point, I would be stunned if he came back for 2010. Totally stunned.
Mike Holmgren, the new team president, told the media Monday that he has not made a final decision on Mangini. However, according to sources with knowledge of the situation, Holmgren has done plenty of due diligence since taking the job, and Mangini’s difficulties dealing with players, co-workers, team employees, etc., dating back to his time as coach of the Jets, when coupled with the on-field performance of his teams, make it virtually certain Holmgren will change coaches in the coming weeks.
Holmgren will meet with Mangini next Monday when he comes to Cleveland and then will conduct a press conference with the media. By the following week, look for a wholesale reconstruction of the Browns organization to begin, with sweeping changes being made throughout football operations, coaching, etc. Mangini shares no coaching roots with Holmgren and comes from a tree diametrically different from the West Coast system Holmgren will implement. Unless something changes dramatically, and given the homework already conducted, that’s highly unlikely. It’s more a matter of when than if a new coach arrives.
The next move could be the hiring of a general manager. Randy Mueller, also a candidate in Seattle, is considered by some league sources as a favorite. Former Denver general manager Ted Sundquist could also be in the mix, while up-and-comers such as Green Bay’s John Schneider and Seattle’s Will Lewis are also in the mix.
Also, as I reported first last week, when Jim Zorn and his staff are let go in Washington, look for Zorn and offensive coordinator Sherman Smith to land back with Holmgren after both were long-time members of his staff in Seattle. Zorn would be a strong quarterback coach if nothing else, while Smith played a central role in the Seahawks’ ground game when Shaun Alexander was running wild. Should Holmgren go with a defensive head coach, look for Leslie Frazier, Minnesota’s defensive coordinator, to be a top choice.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Quote:
Those are excellent comments by Pluto. Mangini continues to be probably one of the most polarizing coaches in recent history.
He TOTALLY screws the pooch with the people he brought in and how he screwed up the organizational chart and the QB situation early in the year.
The flipside is that as I'd said REPEATEDLY during the year, he was catching flack for doing the RIGHT things for no other reason than because it was easy to take shots at him. Yet for each supposed incident.............from practice-time injuries to sitting players who didn't want to put in the work (like Harrison) to the disciplinary actions against Edwards, Mangini-haters were WRONG, DEAD WRONG, and that includes the insinuations by the media.
I have to say that I've never encountered a guy whom I've defended so vehemently while simultaneously hammering him for the things he screwed up on.
Because the screwups were bad, and because it was HIS people that put the Holmgren in the position he's in, I can't see how he could survive.
Don't know if I could have phrased it better... we see some of the results of his discipline..but then there also things that bug me ,especially personnel (roster)decisions,..how he handled the QB situation,the draft..yes the draft..schemes..now perhaps this is growth but it seems forced at this time..I feel the changes were implemented because he knew he was scewing up and job is in jeporady...
I ask myself why weren't some of these adjusments made early in the year ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Also, as I reported first last week,
I hope he didn't tear a rotator cuff patting himself on the back for something that was being discussed on here three weeks ago.... 
If Mangini is gone it will be for philosophical differences in scheme. I was one who said that you don't keep a guy just because he beat the Steelers one time when the Steelers were down... but following that up with 2 more wins (even against pretty bad opponents) is something that you have to take notice of.. this team is playing hard and some talent is actually starting to emerge... unfortunately it's NOT the talent that Mangini went out and selected initially... it's talent that was either already here that he wouldn't play (Harrison) or talent that sort of fell into his lap out of necessity (Roth and Moore)....
I'm not as sure as this author that he's gone, wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not sure.... I'm not saying he's "earned" another year, but I won't be upset if he gets one.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Thanks for the read 'Toad, great stuff there. That, in the end, is the reason why I think Mangini already has one foot out the door. While it may be tough to gauge whether the last 3 wins have been because of or in spite of Mangini, Holmgren will do his due diligence to realize that regardless of these last few weeks, Mangini is an incredibly polarizing figure and he'll be one whether he wins or loses. When a guy says he wants everyone in the organization on the same page, a coach like Mangini is detrimental. Even when he's playing nice, he could be scheming like he did with Kokinis. There also comes a philosophical difference between Mangini and Holmgren (and anyone Holmgren brings in). He might not have to coach the players, but he still needs to help select them and anyone he brings in will probably be from a similar background with experience selecting players for that system. Why would you retain someone with a philosophy that runs counter to what you know, forcing you to draft outside your comfort zone? This quote from his presser was (at least I thought) very telling. Quote:
"If I had to do it all over again, I would have made immediate changes and tried to get the ball rolling a little sooner. That was one thing. Second thing is, in the personnel part of it, our first draft was less than spectacular, because I had really two groups giving me information, the existing group that had been there and the new group that came in with me. We didn't do a good job with the draft, because I didn't. I learned from that. Those types of errors, I trust I won't do again, I won't make again."
So, from that, Holmgren realizes that a) if he's going to make changes, they need to be made now and b) having new staff and old staff giving advice from separate camps is a bad thing. Now, granted, he's talking primarily in a front office context, but having the coaching staff on the same page is equally as important. He seems like someone who realizes the importance of building this up himself so that there is a better chance of organizational cohesiveness.
Thus, regardless of whether you think Mangini has the players playing for him (and I don't... how many coordinators do you see getting more Gatorade baths than head coaches), it probably isn't going to matter. If Holmgren wants to do things his way and build this organization from the ground up, he's going to need to do it with his guys and his system.
There is little reason to think that just because a guy might deserve another crack after a mediocre year that we should put our grand scheme on hold for him.
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
If Mangini is gone it will be for philosophical differences in scheme.
Well thats what MH will let out..but it will be a combination of things but yes scheme and personnel will be the biggest strikes..
He said you can't keep blowing things things up and starting over and he's right..been known for years..however he 's going to want to run a particular offensive scheme for sure..and he's got to get people to fit the scheme..you can't bring in players just for the coach only if you want to save his job but yet you want to run a WCO and coach wants a power scheme..that means the next year you scrap those players..the Browns offense already has players who fit running a WCO scheme which would employ a zone blocking scheme..
Now if EM convinces him he is willing to run it ,it might save him..but as MH said unless I can be convinced another scheme is better we'll run the one I set up.
Defensively I don't see MH converting to a 43..that would require a restart on the D side ..we don't have the personnel to run a 43 ..It seems logical to continue to run the 34 and get better players for that system..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Quote:
I ask myself why weren't some of these adjusments made early in the year ?
Because ..... for lack of a better term .... it's a process.
At the beginning of the year ..... with a very bad and talent deprived team .... it's hard to find things that work. You don't arbitrarily replace your veterans without the younger players proving, at the very least, that they deserve to get on the field. You turn over the roster ... replace ineffective parts one at a time .... try to build some chemistry somewhere ..... get your system fully instituted ..... change the atmosphere ....... change the environment .... create expectations ....... create responsibilities for each player/position ......
It does not happen overnight. It takes some time ..... and often sacrifices some of your "talent" at the expense of team players who follow the rules and work the way they are supposed to.
I have been through the business "parallel" several times in rebuilding failed operations. It always works the same way. Some will resist .... and some vehemently. Those are replaced. Some buy in and then slip back into bad habits. They require the most coaching/supervision. Some become zealouts, and help immensely. Sometimes a new employee comes in and lights it up beyond anything older and more established employees have. That's always a plus.
It is the same process in business, and in the business of the NFL. Both deal with people .... and people in a previously failed environment require a different set of rules than those in a successful environment. Once the environment becomes successful ... then some relaxation of enforcement can occur ..... but it can be considered almost tyranical at first.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Because ..... for lack of a better term .... it's a process.
What, you need time to know that your RT should be flippin' burgers instead of allowing DE's to flatten your QB?
Now they go back to the scheme that worked before?
When that should have been worked out in TC and preseason.
Your vet RB hasn't shown in one game he was going to have a effective year..yet you kept pounding and pounding him..only to finally have to shelve him..
U tried like crap to make your ST's ace into a WR over your 2nd round pick and it failed big time...wasting time and who knows how many yards on the field..
It's not a process that MH mishandled the QB situation..it's not a process that he mishandled the draft..
At the beginning of the year ..... with a very bad and talent deprived team
Wait ..it still is..so why weren't some of the changes being made early on?
Actually it's a rhetorical question..it appears to some that EM was content to ride it out until his wakeup call came in ...then a sense of urgency came out..
Some things are a process,but the fact that other players were brought in late and outplayed his original selected players is curious to me.
Who's been evaluating these new players ?
Thats one thing I'm very interested in..since there's no GM..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Quote:
What, you need time to know that your RT should be flippin' burgers instead of allowing DE's to flatten your QB?
And who was the option there? Sometimes you go with the cheaper bum .... because, if you have to have a bum at a position, he might as well be cheap.
Quote:
Your vet RB hasn't shown in one game he was going to have a effective year..yet you kept pounding and pounding him..only to finally have to shelve him..
And neither of our "vet" QBs showed that they could run the offense effectively ...... and (My own educated guess here) Harrison had not yet bought into what they wanted him to do .... so they benched him.
Sometimes you take steps that hurt in the short term to achieve a long term gain.
Also ..... how would the veterans have felt if you would have benched Lewis a game or 2 into the season ..... when he did the right things .... practiced hard ...... worked hard .... and had a very favorable track record in Cleveland? What message would that have sent?
Quote:
Wait ..it still is..so why weren't some of the changes being made early on?
You say rhetorical .... but it's really not.
Changes get made when they need to be made. Quinn failed ... so Anderson got a shot. Anderson failed ... and Quinn supposedly worked hard ...... so he got his shot again.
Players are brought in and let go ...... bodies turn over at the bottom of the roster ..... practice squad guys come and go .... looking for a gem among the flotsom ...... Waivers are scoured .......
We got Roth and Moore this way. Each has a different level of promise .... but each does show promise as a potential future piece of the puzzle.
It's not an exact science. It's plug in pieces and see who might fit. On a team that had little talent and fewer options entering this season .... what was the option? We had 4 (IIRC) draft picks in this year's draft. We had a horrible roster. We had a massively overpriced RT who is now a backup on a pretty bad Bears team. Our staring RG got hurt in training camp. We had a WR corps consisting of Dropsy and the bums. What reliable WRs were a part of this team prior to the draft? Steptoe?  He was pobably the best of a really bad bunch.
I really think that we look at the roster that ended last year in different ways. I saw a bunch of bums who needed to be replaced .... and a long and difficult climb due to the fact that we had almost no draft picks available.You must have seen something else. I saw a roster comprised of some limited talent ...... and a bunch of fill in and stop gap types. You must have seen something else.
What did you think that this team was capable of .... at its upside best?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Toad...basically thats Jason La Confora decision making process if HE WAS Holmgren.
and Mangini’s difficulties dealing with players, co-workers, team employees, etc., dating back to his time as coach of the Jets, when coupled with the on-field performance of his teams, make it virtually certain Holmgren will change coaches in the coming weeks.
and that is total Bozo bs...cause they assume Holmgren doing his due diligence will be listening to the Bozo's who have a terribly biased opinion of Mangini regarding with their made up difficulties with players...like who Jamal Lewis who deemed it not worth working hard and losing...of course we start winning when he leaves. Like who BE...that model player who talks to the media one way and acts totally different in the Locker room?
Co-workers like who? The way Sealey one of the best coaches at what he does follows him here...he could write his ticket ANYWHERE...and Ryan another experienced and well respected coach who could get several jobs in the NFL WANTED to coach with Mangini?
Oh the Adam Schefter wannabee has talked to who Pioli and BB ?
Just made up BS crap and he basing his entire argument on his biased view of Mangini.
I hate Bozo's...at least Pluto who is one of the few that I like...stated his bias before reporting the facts that form his opinion...the other bozo reported his opinion as fact on making his opinion
Anyways...I'm happy at least Mangini has a shot. His presentation will have to be good after our game...the week after. Starting with Monday meeting with Holmgren and the longer he stays the more the odds get good on him returning. If its a couple of hours and Mangini is leaving the building...we know he's done. But if they have dinner and then decide to continue discussions. Then they are talking some GOOD FOOTBALL and agreeing on a lot more than most give credit for 
In my eyes nothing would be better for this team to continue with Mangini and Holmgren working with him and making the entire thing better. As mentioned before also...no doubt in my mind Mangini would have to appease Holmgren by giving him a lot of say into the offense...including firing Daboll if need be.
JMHO
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
This quote from his presser was (at least I thought) very telling.
Quote:
"If I had to do it all over again, I would have made immediate changes and tried to get the ball rolling a little sooner. That was one thing. Second thing is, in the personnel part of it, our first draft was less than spectacular, because I had really two groups giving me information, the existing group that had been there and the new group that came in with me. We didn't do a good job with the draft, because I didn't. I learned from that. Those types of errors, I trust I won't do again, I won't make again."
Hello??? Earth to everyone.
He said what he needed to say in prepared statements about the current regime. Then he went into Q&A mode with the media and let this one slip.
Mangini is gone. Right after the season. The moving company has been called.
Holmgren has put pen to paper on the architecture of the front office and made his list of candidates for each position. He's going to be working the phones as soon as he's able to by league rule.
Mangini will get that 60 second thanks for all the hard work and keep your head up skippy call. And that will be it. Finito.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Hold your Hawaiian horses there, Hel.
There exists two scenarios where Mangini stays: If Holmgren needs a lame-duck coach to fill-in for a year while he waits for Gruden to get out of his "iron-clad" ESPN contract, OR if he decides he wants to let Mangini take the bullets one year while he rebuilds the roster, then decides himself to step in as head coach.
I'm not advocating any of that because I don't personally like either of those scenarios, but they are possibilities.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
And who was the option there? Sometimes you go with the cheaper bum .... because, if you have to have a bum at a position, he might as well be cheap.
First if I have to have a bum..he's going to be good at something..and if I can't get what I want in FA ,I get it in the draft.
Second thing once Fraley was inserted at RG the line play improved..as soon as Hadnot came back HF was benched..and the line play regressed..when they changed the scheme, and inserted HF ,the line play improved..
Moving Womack to OT was the better fit ..again they had all of TC and preseason to do it..and they tinkered with the line as it was..instead of trying to replace Steiny they should have focused on the scheme more. And neither of our "vet" QBs showed that they could run the offense effectively ...... and (My own educated guess here) Harrison had not yet bought into what they wanted him to do .... so they benched him.
Sometimes you take steps that hurt in the short term to achieve a long term gain.Also ..... how would the veterans have felt if you would have benched Lewis a game or 2 into the season ..... when he did the right things .... practiced hard ...... worked hard .... and had a very favorable track record in Cleveland? What message would that have sent?
Didn't say bench him..but split carries..actually they started trying to give Davis the ball but that little incident canned that ..but when they used JH against the Bengals he responded..
But inbetween that,they just loaded Lewis up ..he was done early on.
Now if Harrison wasn't practicing the way he should have ,I don't have any issues with that ,if that wa really it..,.
The only message that needs to be sent is "U play to win the game".. Changes get made when they need to be made. Quinn failed ... so Anderson got a shot. Anderson failed ... and Quinn supposedly worked hard ...... so he got his shot again.
I dissected this when it happened..now not absolve BQ he has played turrible...turrible..but those first two weeks against the better defenses ,it sure appeared that the playcalling was not designed to get him to do much,,and he appeared as if he wouldn't go downfield ..but somethign was up..plus all the little leaks about Quinn questioning Dumboll..and being in the doghouse for a bit..
I doubt seriously from what I heard that it was ever a issue of Brady not working hard in practice but something was going on ..
Then we fast forward to DA having the most disgusting performances I've seen a while... they decide to go back to BQ..and then the scheme is to go more downfield..
Now it's obvious someone didn't trust him to go downfield..and he's shown he's just about as inaccurate downfield as DA is in short passes..so it's a wash..but IMO you named the starter ,ride him out.
U can't jerk young QB's in and out of the lineup.. but the QB situation was joke..both in decisions and performance...
We had a WR corps consisting of Dropsy and the bums. What reliable WRs were a part of this team prior to the draft? Since EM seemed to be in control of things..I'll say he ahd a chance to do upgrades in the draft..right?
I repeated it yesterday..if you know you want to trade Edwards then you go into the draft and get as close a replacement as you can find.
Thats it in a nutshell for me regading the replacements of K2/Edwards..I was glad they were traded but I will not agree how they were replaced..bad moves..
Same thing with Viekune..on a team starved for talent..this is a year you draft guys with skills and are ready to go..a tweener like him would come in a later round..you want a inside backer who can rush the passer?
Then get a ILB/OLB who skillset translates to the 34 ,is solid aganst the run and move him inside..Miava..Miava is almost a DQ clone..why another undersized LB??
Oh wait ..ST's.. 
.. What did you think that this team was capable of .... at its upside best? U really want me to answer that?
If it was handled better,the team would have been more competitive early on.
Certain positions would be better than they are now.
Biggest weaknesses were OG/OT with the uncertainty of Tucker..FS,with Pool's concussion issues,WR/TE/ILB/CB.none of those were addressed properly...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I'm not so sure it has to be either Holmgren or Gruden that steps in.. if he does in fact keep Mangini for a year to "take the bullets"... it could be just that, to take the bullets, anticipating another losing season while he builds his roster.. so his new coach doesn't have to take that year of heat..
Personally, I think either is dumb. If you are going to go out and draft and acquire players for a certain system, then put them in that system TODAY so they get used to it as fast as possible and gain familiarity with the coach, the system, etc...
The third option might be that Mangini convinces him that he's the best fit... Not saying that is the case either, but it is a possibility.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Personally, I think either is dumb. If you are going to go out and draft and acquire players for a certain system, then put them in that system TODAY so they get used to it as fast as possible and gain familiarity with the coach, the system, etc..
That is the logical and fastest way to get the Browns moving forward.
Get players who fit the scheme..actually this should be one of the few times this team will have a identity..a true identity.
How that will translate to EM remains to be seen based on how MH evaluates him..but rule out players will be brought in to save his job..
Holmgren said one of the reasons he'll move quickly at season's end -- including the hiring of a new general manager -- is because he waited too long when taking over as GM and coach of Seattle in 1999.
"If I had to do it all over again, I would've made immediate changes and tried to get the ball rolling a little sooner," he said. "Our first draft was less than spectacular because I had two groups giving me information -- the existing group and the new group."
MH doesn't want to risk or compromise one bit, when it comes to his vision and philosophies. He is going to allow Mangini ONE sit down to sell him. The sell isn't about what the team should do or what Mangini wants either, it's strictly on whatever MH wants Mangini will do and do it with a smile.
"If he doesn't like what I like,then he'll have to convince me that what he's doing is better than what I like to see.."
Last edited by Attack Dawg; 12/29/09 03:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
If it was handled better,the team would have been more competitive early on.
Certain positions would be better than they are now.
Biggest weaknesses were OG/OT with the uncertainty of Tucker..FS,with Pool's concussion issues,WR/TE/ILB/CB.none of those were addressed properly...
I have to disagree here. You listed 7 positions of weakness. I would add to that SS (Sean Jones left for Philly), OLB (McGinest retired), RB (Lewis clearly on the decline), and possibly QB. There is no way to address all 11 positions in one offseason.
There was also no way we were going to spend big bucks on free agents as we ended 2008 as spending the fourth most on salary in the league.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/cleveland-browns/salary/67042
So that really only left the draft to improve the team. They did draft WRs, ILBs, and a RB, which could address some of the positions listed above. But the draft is more often a long term solution, especially on a bad team. The rare players outside of the first round that make an instant impact are usually plugged into talented teams (examples: Mauluga, McCoy, Loadholt are all on playoff caliber teams).
As crazy as it might sound, I think what we're seeing from this team is actually the best possible scenario, especially if the team finishes 5-11.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
I have to disagree here. You listed 7 positions of weakness. I would add to that SS (Sean Jones left for Philly), OLB (McGinest retired), RB (Lewis clearly on the decline), and possibly QB. There is no way to address all 11 positions in one offseason.
Simple..I didn't list those because of the bodies that were penciled in there looked to be servicable..
I for one never say every hole can be filled in one offseason.. There was also no way we were going to spend big bucks on free agents as we ended 2008 as spending the fourth most on salary in the league.
Never said or thought we were going to be big spenders..we just bought a lot of Jets.. So that really only left the draft to improve the team. They did draft WRs, ILBs, and a RB, which could address some of the positions listed above. But the draft is more often a long term solution, especially on a bad team. The rare players outside of the first round that make an instant impact are usually plugged into talented teams (examples: Mauluga, McCoy, Loadholt are all on playoff caliber teams).
Huh? Come again?
While the Browns drafted WR's/LB's..they didn't draft the better ones..BTW they only drafted one LB, Maiva..Viekune was DE.
What you said doesn't make any sense to me.
U're saying those names you listed couldn't have been drafted by a poor team like the Browns and impacted them even greater?
So you're saying that instant impact players drafted after round one are bypassed by poor teams and drafted by playoff teams because they need the instant impact faster? 
Weaker teams need to draft players who take longer to develop?
Why did I think it would be the other way around? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Huh? Come again?
While the Browns drafted WR's/LB's..they didn't draft the better ones..BTW they only drafted one LB, Maiva..Viekune was DE.
What you said doesn't make any sense to me.
U're saying those names you listed couldn't have been drafted by a poor team like the Browns and impacted them even greater?
So you're saying that instant impact players drafted after round one are bypassed by poor teams and drafted by playoff teams because they need the instant impact faster?
The second time I read it, it is a little cloudy what I'm saying. I'll try to clarify what I mean. I'm not saying the Browns and other poor teams bypass instant impact players. I'm saying that the majority of players outside the first round do not come right in and start at the beginning of their rookie year. Most players have to develop. Some take half a season, some two years, some never do. Thus, I think we just don't know how good the Browns' draft was yet.
As for them not drafting the better WRs/LBs, who should they have taken once they had taken Mack? They really took the two best WR available at that time. The only difference I could see is they could have taken Mauluga instead of Robiskie.
As far a Veikune goes, he may have played DE in college, but as I understood it the idea was to convert him to LB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
And if you believe either of those two scenarios:
I have some swamp land er... some fine commercial property to sell you out here! 10% down is all you need!
I take non-sequential 20s.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
I was being sarcastic..  As for them not drafting the better WRs/LBs, who should they have taken once they had taken Mack? They really took the two best WR available at that time. The only difference I could see is they could have taken Mauluga instead of Robiskie.
Well this is my stance as I said this a year and a half ago..Hadnot played OC for Miami one whole year before he came here.
I would have moved him there and let him battle Fraley for one year.
Then I might have looked for a another center later in the draft.
I would have selected Macklin or Kenny Britt with that first pick..
If you go back and look att he draft the Browns were the only team to draft any WR's in the second round..
I'll finish this tomorrow when I come back.
Last edited by Attack Dawg; 12/29/09 05:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
I think Mangini deserves another year to prove himself. What do people expect is going to happen when you have to tear down and rebuild? It is going to take time to get your type of players and get them used to a new system. He traded away talent for draft picks which means this year we can expect to be low on talent while we wait for the draft picks to come in. I hope Holmgren decides to stay the course and help Mangini become successful.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Mangini and Next Year
|
|
