DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Mangini Won 4 in a Row..Now what?

Quote:

---

If you're losing all your recieving weapons ,then you go get some comperable players to come in via FA and/or the draft.

---

First off, to get a number 1 receiver in FA was an impossibility this year for the Browns. Those guys don't come cheap and the Browns were dumping salary, not adding.

I have no problem with this strategy if the situation were different. But this assumes that the Browns knew they were going to have takers for Edwards. I think they tried to trade him on draft day, and when it became clear they weren't going to get much for him, they decided to hold on to him, so they had to plan for the future with Edwards. So now they go into the draft with a number 1 receiver and thus they drafted complementary receivers. MoMass and Robiskie were not meant to be number 1s. This was fine with me; if you aren't going to get a lot in a trade why not put Edwards out there and see if he can recapture 2007?

By Oct 8, they were 0-4 and looking quite hapless in 3 of 4 games. Edwards had a couple of off field incidents. His contract was up after the season. He wasn't performing. As a top 5 pick, he had a very large salary on a team with cap problems. They were forced to trade him. You say in another post that your opinion is that they didn't get enough for Edwards. Had they traded him after 2007, they could have gotten quite a bit. But now, after a dismal 2008 season and a lackluster start to 2009 plus all the reasons I listed above, what team in their right mind was going to give us starting caliber players and/or high draft picks?

Decided to post one of the most rediculous worst pieces of journalism articles ever.

It's like they took five articles and combined it into one!

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-sports-blog/index.ssf/2010/01/am_cleveland_browns_links_will.html


A.M. Cleveland Browns Links: Will he stay or will he go; Working hard; Decision time; Up in the air
By Starting Blocks
January 05, 2010, 8:09AM


Mike Holmgren has a tough decision, writes Columbus Dispatch columnist Bob Hunter. Holmgren, the Cleveland Browns' president of football operations, will decide soon if he will retain coach Eric Mangini.

This decision was easy a month ago. That's when the Browns had only one win, and that's when rumors circulated that many of the players on the roster couldn't stand Mangini.

But a winning streak has changed all of that. The Gatorade splash following last Sunday's victory was a sign that Mangini is now loved by many of his players.

But is that enough?

Hunter writes:

It has been said in this space before that stability is important, and Mangini's retention would help provide it. But to reiterate an old point: If the plan is to keep Mangini and then fire him after the Browns don't make the playoffs next season, which they almost surely won't, they might as well get it over with now.



Work Hard: Say what you will about the Cleveland Browns, but one thing is for certain, writes Ohio.com columnist Pat McManamon, the team played hard.

To even mention that it was an issue, that they played extra hard the final month because of this, that or some other reason pretty much insults them as players and professionals.

''Never,'' said defensive back Mike Adams when asked if playing hard was a problem. ''Never. Not one point in the season where you could say, 'Oh they slacked off' or 'They're not playing hard because of this or that.'

''That was never an issue.''

So it wasn't a case of the Browns playing extra hard during the last month of the season for Mangini. They also played hard for themselves.

Derek Anderson says to Ohio.com:

''Everybody played a part in it, but what it all boils down to is the players,'' he said. ''It boils down to us accepting what is in front of us and accepting the challenge, stepping up to adversity and wanting to win, wanting go out with a bang, wanting to finish the season strong. It's mainly the players.''

In this case, it doesn't seem to matter if the coach was Eric Clapton, Eric Mangini or Eric the Red, this team would have competed in each of the 16 games.



Decision time: CantonRep.com's Todd Porter wonders if firing coach Eric Mangini would be a mistake.

Porter writes about data by a New York University Professor Robert Boland compiled in 2007. Boland, who also writes for the National Football Post, took into account several factors for teams to hire a head coach. Mangini, according to the data, fits the mold of a coach who has a higher chance of being successful in his second NFL head coaching job than his first.

In looking at a sampling of coaches in their second jobs, The Repository found the odds are in favor of Mangini turning the Browns’ misery around in 2010.

“It’s really simple,” Boland said. “The guys who had good second and even third job experiences were guys who were decent in their first job and lost it through something else going wrong. To a degree, Mangini fits that mold. Brett Favre’s shoulder injury cost Mangini the Jets job.




Up in the air: Coach Eric Mangini will probably make his case with Mike Holmgren today. If a coaching change is made, writes News-Herald reporter Jeff Schudel, guard Eric Steinbach will be playing for his third coach in four years.

"It took time for everyone to get used to the way things were going to be run," Steinbach said. "You're either buying in or you're not. There wasn't a mutiny on the Bounty or anything like that. Everyone has stayed together, which is why we didn't go in the tank. The resilience and toughness of the players is what I'm proud of."

"It took time for everyone to get used to the way things were going to be run," Steinbach said. "You're either buying in or you're not. There wasn't a mutiny on the Bounty or anything like that. Everyone has stayed together, which is why we didn't go in the tank. The resilience and toughness of the players is what I'm proud of."

Interesting take from one of the harder workers out there. Thanks, Steiney.

Quote:

---

''Everybody played a part in it, but what it all boils down to is the players,'' he said. ''It boils down to us accepting what is in front of us and accepting the challenge, stepping up to adversity and wanting to win, wanting go out with a bang, wanting to finish the season strong. It's mainly the players.''

---

Then may be the PLAYERS can explain what happened last season with the pathetic finish that we had. And no offense Derrik Anderson, you did win that game I guess, but I don't think he's going to be a Browns QB next year and he was in no way instrumental in our success.

(unless we're talking about how well he accepted the snap and handed the ball off in the 2nd/3rd quarters against the jags)


Many other tidbits annoy me as well but i will not comment on those because the article is hard enough to read/understand as it is

I don't blame Anderson for being "PC" there,...IF he is fighting for another job on another team because he won't be retained here, then he has to come across with the "team player" look.

In my own personal world of diplomacy and desire, I hope Mangini gets another chance, we draft a RT FIRST, the WCO is installed, Anderson is # 2 as a solid backup, the Browns rush for 2,500-3,000 yards next year, we make a nice playoff run, compete in a second round playoff game (drawing a bye in the first ), and move forward from there.

But I'll settle for 8-8,...that was my goal for Mangini this season. We're still building, so I'm keeping the same goal.

First off, to get a number 1 receiver in FA was an impossibility this year for the Browns. Those guys don't come cheap and the Browns were dumping salary, not adding.


I am aware of that which is why I said .."draft"..plus after seeing the guy they got from the Jets,(another Jet)I think I would taken the Giants offer ..

But this assumes that the Browns knew they were going to have takers for Edwards. I think they tried to trade him on draft day, and when it became clear they weren't going to get much for him, they decided to hold on to him, so they had to plan for the future with Edwards. So now they go into the draft with a number 1 receiver and thus they drafted complementary receivers. MoMass and Robiskie were not meant to be number 1s

U proved my point..and the stradegy was off..if my # 1 is on the trading block and I know I'm unloading him at some point,plus the fact I have no other deep threat on the unit..I'm getting the best WR I can ,when I have the chance to help my QB.
And hoping he would recapture anything from 07 was wishful thinking.. I never once felt he could do that.He hasn't even with the trade.

I listed above, what team in their right mind was going to give us starting caliber players and/or high draft picks?

I know some think that way but I don't ..in all the tradedowns the Browns did they still never recouped the quality of picks they got back..it became clear they settled for what they got..

Philly took the first one in Macklin,when they swapped picks with Cleveland..when the Browns sat at 21..I thought they would take Britt..they took Mack...o.k..fine then do something more aggressive for your receiving core.
But the first pick in the second they take Robo..didn't like it then ,still don't..a possession reciever,a position that can filled later ..I'm not and have not debated taking Mass..he's more of a 2 ..my issues with the draft are Robo/Viekune/Miava..
I always say this,when I look at some other team's drafts (not all but there are 4 I watch) and I have for years they seem to have their drafts down and upgrade pretty well even when they are unloading players..

Won't go so far as to say Brian is a bust,...he might come back yet as a solid 2 or 3, but if we took him to replace the "known" -- as in, we're trading BE -- then that appears to have been a minor miscue.

He needs to make camp next year, push Furrey around (if we get a safety --and, we HAVE to), or else that pick becomes more than a "minor" oversight,....

I actually think EM took him because he is smart,has good hands and is a possession receiver..that was to compliment Edwards which IMO was a mistake ,since one way or the other Edwards was gone.
I would have preferred he get another viable deep threat that would be the main target if Edwards was traded ..that actually turned out to be Mass but Robo merely languished on the bench.. there was no one opposite Mass to draw attention ..

I guess I'm just not so enamored with having to have a big #1 Terrell Owens (bad example ?) or Randy Moss, as I would be with having 3 or 4 #2 WR's that ALL have to be covered,...like a bunch of Wes Welker's. And I think you can get away with that running, not only a WCO, but RUNNING, the ball as well as we seem to have had success in lately.

That'll ALL change coming up here in the next couple of days or so,...

Your turn, Big Mikey,....

Quote:

---

I guess I'm just not so enamored with having to have a big #1 Terrell Owens (bad example ?) or Randy Moss, as I would be with having 3 or 4 #2 WR's that ALL have to be covered,...like a bunch of Wes Welker's. And I think you can get away with that running, not only a WCO, but RUNNING, the ball as well as we seem to have had success in lately.

---

I don't like to look at guys as number ones or number twos always. Just as matchups and receiving options. How a guy affects a defenses gameplan and how they improve ours is really how you measure them.

That's why I don't mind receivers high in the draft, while they don't catch that many passes, they change defense's schemes.

Who would you consider a number one verses who is a number two? Can teams have two number one's like us in 2007?

Quote:

---

U proved my point..and the stradegy was off..if my # 1 is on the trading block and I know I'm unloading him at some point

---

They didn't know they would be unloading him. Edwards was on the trading block before/on draft day. They didn't get the offer they wanted, so at that point, the Browns could not assume they would be able to trade him. They had to move forward with him as their number 1.

When they decided not to trade him during the draft, they committed themselves to trying to make it work with BE. But by week 4, they looked so bad as did Braylon that at that point they might as well get something for BE since he would probably walk at the end of the year.

Maybe you are right and they should've taken the Giants' offer, but I'm not sure we'll ever know the specifics of that offer and how it compares to the Jets' offer.

Quote:

---

I listed above, what team in their right mind was going to give us starting caliber players and/or high draft picks?

I know some think that way but I don't ..in all the tradedowns the Browns did they still never recouped the quality of picks they got back..it became clear they settled for what they got..

---

I was talking specifically about the Braylon trade, not the tradedowns.

They didn't know they would be unloading him. Edwards was on the trading block before/on draft day.


Didn't know they could..and Edwards was still on the block after the draft..not like they just gave up the idea of trading him..as EM said they still had deals on the table ,so didn't know is offbase.


But by week 4, they looked so bad as did Braylon that at that point they might as well get something for BE since he would probably walk at the end of the year.



No,it was the punching mayhem outside the bar that sealed it..had nothing to do with then Browns looking bad..thats another story ..
I probably have these names in reverse(who cares ) but the Browns wanted Domenik Hixon, and the Giants supposedly would have unloaded Steve Smith and/or another player..something to that effect..and a pick ..

Quote:

---

"The resilience and toughness of the players is what I'm proud of."

---

Steiny is dead on with his comments...

I give most of the credit for the Browns 5 wins and 4 wins in a row to the PLAYERS.

It was the "players" hard work that gave Browns fans "a little bit" to be proud of, closing out another terrible season.

Just look how far this franchise has fallen...Browns fans are trying to put a smiley face on a 5 win season...

And yet, players who quit last year *McDonald, Wright, Williams, 99% of the offense* decided not to quit this year.


What kinda soup are U sippin'?

Williams played with a hurt should last year plus is not a fit for a 34DE..it was a bad move for Phil to trade for him.
He knows he fits better as DT in a 43 system..
Wright had a up and down year and is learning..didn't really see him quit..just made some bad plays.
McFlurry..this is a guy who should be in the nickle not starting..he shys away from contact and is a horrible tackler of any player bigger than himself..

I would agree that, THEORETICALLY, more reps with the first unit should lead to improved QB play. However, IMO, in this case, neither DA or BQ had much, if any, room for improvement. Both turds are about as highly polished as they are ever likely to be.

Again IMO, EM simply had no good option. Picking one or the other would LOCK the HC onto a bad QB. By delaying the decision, the situation was not made any worse, and he was mainly declining to hitch his wagon to a dead horse.

I understand the desire to point to a failure by EM as being the cause of bad QB play. If you can pinpoint this as the cause of the problem, then there's an easily obtainable solution, or a better way to have done it.

Is it your opinion that either BQ, or DA, would have played noticeably BETTER if the choice had been made earlier? Don't want to hear theory, or standard practices, But that you have a near-certainty that better QB play, from one of the two we had, would have resulted from a different way of handling them.

I just don't think that is the case. That would mean that EM's handling of the situation, while not NFL standard, did not matter, and further, he knew that, and therefore his delaying the decision was not a mistake.

I would agree that, THEORETICALLY, more reps with the first unit should lead to improved QB play. However, IMO, in this case, neither DA or BQ had much, if any, room for improvement. Both turds are about as highly polished as they are ever likely to be.


People wanted to give DA more games to see if he could get better,which he didn't ..the same needed to be for BQ..give him the reps to see what he has..then you know whether you need another QB.


Is it your opinion that either BQ, or DA, would have played noticeably BETTER if the choice had been made earlier? Don't want to hear theory, or standard practices, But that you have a near-certainty that better QB play, from one of the two we had, would have resulted from a different way of handling them.


I really don't care what you want to hear,I'll tell you what I want you to know
I shouldn't have to repeat whats a known factor about juggling two QB's ,not naming a clear starter and giving them reps to work with in TC..even if neither one is a talented starter..if you want to get a sold evaluation you need to go with one and see him in every situation and use his strengths..the offense had no direction for about what,11 games??
If you really don't want to understand that, then it's waste..

Yes, and the direction we finally got was to take the QB out of the equation and just run the ball.

We have seen both QB in different situations and both suck. No amount of increased reps would have had any effect on that.

What I understand from this exchange is that it would appear that your only goal is to point out that EM made a bad decision. My goal is a better team, however that is made to come about. If doing things a particular way is supposed to achieve that, I would agree with that course of action. But if choosing A or B does not make any difference, then neither A nor B nor the choice itself matters.

I have offered you the opportunity to state that doing it your way would have made either BQ, or DA, a better QB. If you won't even offer an opinion either way, how can you fault EM for the same refusal?

Let me open up the same question to ANYBODY who wants to offer an opinion. Is there ANYONE who cares to opine that making an earlier choice would have resulted in better QB play?

Do I hear crickets chirping?

Quote:

---

My problem with Mangini wasn't with waiting as long as he did to choose a starter, but rather in not choosing to give the starter all the reps he could to finish the pre-season. That was a mistake, a mistake most NFL coaches don't make.

---

i still don't understand this stance. for all we knew, quinn got all the 1's reps in practice up to the 4th preseason game. are you saying that mangini should've played quinn for most of the 4th preseason game? if so, that's not something other coaches do even if there is a qb battle, primarily to prevent injury. further, i'm sure he also got all the practice reps after the 4th preseason game leading up to the vikings game. so what reps is mangini hold out on?

heh, for all we know, maybe he was hoping bartel or ratliff would tear it up because he really didn't want to play either DA or quinn

I have offered you the opportunity to state that doing it your way would have made either BQ, or DA, a better QB. If you won't even offer an opinion either way, how can you fault EM for the same refusal?


First lets throw DA out, no amount of reps was going to make him better..he is what I said he is three years ago.
Second ,Brady lost his job due to injury last season..you have that much money tied in the QB he needs to be looked at ..I felt the QB comp wa s awaste andn it was..Quinn beat DA out but was yanked in two weeks..and not only because of poor play.
Since I feel there were some other factors behind the scenes, he was not given a fair shake so it could be seen through..there's the other fault I have with EM..
I know if they both lack talent reps won't make them better,but if one needed to get confortable with the scheme(whatever that was) than it was improtant to name the starter and go with it.

true true but in the 4th game, it's not like there'd be that many thows.to go around before the 3rd stringers come out

another recent tidbit from king:

Quote:

---

If Zorn gets back into NFL coaching right away, I'm sure he'll have a landing spot somewhere in Cleveland, where Mike Holmgren, his old boss in Seattle, is now running the show..... Holmgren keeping Mangini is starting to feel like a better than 50-50 bet to me. It buys Holmgren time and options. If he wants to try and land Gruden in 2011, you keep Mangini for a year and see what the landscape looks like next year at this time. If you want to return to coaching yourself at some point in the future, something Holmgren refuses to rule out, the same scenario applies.

---

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/01/04/coaching/index.html

Sounds like King's been reading these message boards.

My problem with Mangini wasn't with waiting as long as he did to choose a starter, but rather in not choosing to give the starter all the reps he could to finish the pre-season. That was a mistake, a mistake most NFL coaches don't make.

Toad, I know you claim the title of "fence-sitter", but this has got to be the all-time champeen fence-sitting comment. The "starter" did not get the reps BECAUSE the choice had not been made yet.

Though AD comes close. Won't say BQ would have gotten better, just that he could have been more "comfortable". He coulda had a La-Z-Boy back there, it would not have helped.

The delay in choosing made no difference, neither can play the position, no other coach has done it this way cause they never had such a no-win lack of talent to choose from.

EM's "different" approach did not prevent improved play, therefore it was NOT a "screw-up". Next item on the agenda?

U still are being narrow minded..
U have a young QB who had only a couple of starts and is coming off a injury ..U throw up another comp in TC which although neither was impressive the former first rounder won the job..but you still wait to name the starter???
Instead of giving him the needed reps to work with his new receivers and cast.
This isn't about that the the time would have made him have better skills,either you have those or you don't..you still can improve on things but you can;t improve if you don't get the practice or playing time..do U understand that?
Next ,something that needs to said,after BQ was yanked and one Toad (and several others were clamouring the offense and coaches lost confidence in him-so DA needed to come in) , what transpired was some of the more pitiful display of putrid football I have ever seen..it merely proved that one QB has little talent and will never improve and the other one was overhyped,which I said only one time when he was drafted..

Me..I know the Browns need another QB but I always maintained I wanted to see enough of BQ to make that choice..
Fact is also there were things going on behind the play on the field that was influencing decisions that were being made..
But all that mess is going to be sucked up and flushed up and things should be on the way up..

j/c


There's no doubt Browns always gave it their best

Players say any change is out of their control

By Patrick McManamon
Beacon Journal sports columnist

Published on Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010



BEREA: What should be an offseason of change for the Browns begins in earnest today when new president Mike Holmgren spends his first day with the team.

Before that happens, though, let's be blunt about one fact regarding the 2009 Browns: Playing hard was never an issue with them.

It wasn't an issue in training camp, preseason, Game 1, Game 9, Game 16 or any of the games between.

Start to finish, these Browns gave what they had to give each and every game.

To even mention that it was an issue, that they played extra hard the final month because of this, that or some other reason pretty much insults them as players and professionals.

''Never,'' said defensive back Mike Adams when asked if playing hard was a problem. ''Never. Not one point in the season where you could say, 'Oh they slacked off' or 'They're not playing hard because of this or that.'

''That was never an issue.''

Said guard Eric Steinbach: ''A lot of teams would fold with the record we had, but everybody did a good job of hanging in there.''

Steinbach went as far as saying he was proudest of the consistent effort of the team.

''Mostly with this team there wasn't a lot of Mutiny on the Bounty or anything like that,'' Steinbach said. ''Everyone just kind of stayed together, which is why we didn't go in the tank.



''We were 1-10 or whatever, you would see other teams in the league just dive in the tank and forget about it. This team kind of hung in there.

''The resilience and the toughness of the players is what I'm proud of.''

Players who are professional play each and every game. They have 16 chances to prove themselves, and they take advantage of all 16 opportunities.

The Browns have a good collection of professionals.

That is to coach Eric Mangini's credit.

He has a locker room full of good guys who approach the game the right way.

But to pretend that these same guys played extra hard in the final month because they believed in Mangini or because they wanted to save his job is not giving them proper credit.

In fact, some Browns said they believed it was the players who were most responsible for the final four wins.

Sunday, Derek Anderson was asked if Mangini deserved credit for the turnaround. He said it said more about the guys in the locker room.

Monday, a blunt question was put to Adams: Don't you think Mangini had a hand in this turnaround at the end?

''Everybody played a part in it, but what it all boils down to is the players,'' he said. ''It boils down to us accepting what is in front of us and accepting the challenge, stepping up to adversity and wanting to win, wanting go out with a bang, wanting to finish the season strong.

''It's mainly the players.''

In this case, it doesn't seem to matter if the coach was Eric Clapton, Eric Mangini or Eric the Red, this team would have competed in each of the 16 games.

Monday, players had almost resigned themselves to the fact that a change could be coming.

While Mangini talked of having an open discussion with Holmgren about the team's present and future, players said any change was out of their control.

''I'll leave that up to Holmgren,'' Adams said. ''I'm pretty sure they got the best man for the job so he'll make the best decision possible for the team.''

''You guys know as much as I do right now,'' Steinbach said, later adding: ''I'll find out when you find out.''

''I can only control what I can control,'' running back Jerome Harrison said.

Whether those comments are significant might depend on point of view. The previous day Josh Cribbs was steadfast in his support of Mangini. Same for David Bowens and Lawrence Vickers.

But other players Sunday and Monday were given the chance to stand up for their coach, to make a statement that they'd like him back.

They all pretty much left it alone.

Which did not make them sound like a group averse to a fresh start.



Patrick McManamon can be reached at pmcmanamon@thebeaconjournal.com. Read his blog at http://www.ohio.com/mcmanamon/. Follow Pat on Twitter @patmcmanamon.



Ohio.com

"'It's mainly the players.''
In this case, it doesn't seem to matter if the coach was Eric Clapton, Eric Mangini or Eric the Red, this team would have competed in each of the 16 games.

Wow what a load of crap from Pat...yeah he's right...What is Holmgren thinking about...save Randy money and don't hire a coach at - after all the players can do it all on their own...they don't need a coach for leadership...

Mangini bashing at its lowest form...how stupid does he think Brown's fans are???

No, maybe they didn't do it as in Winning one for the gipper...quite frankly I see teams lose more often than not when they try to win per Emotional basis.

How bout they did it for the TEAM under the leadership and preparation of the Coaching staff. Which is the process.

JMHO just unbelievable

I didn't see where McManamon threw EM under the bus in that article, he was singing the praises of the players more than anything.

For what it's worth, Peter King said on PTI today that the two guys Holmgren wants are unavailable. The names he mentioned, Andy Reid and Jon Gruden.

Yeah... Great job against Dallas on Sunday, Reid. Another key game you couldn't win, ya putz. Just sayin'.