DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Changes are coming

The change in Browns head coaches from Eric Mangini to Pat Shurmur will result in a changes in the team's style and a makeover of the roster.

The offense will change to the pass-first West Coast system favored by President Mike Holmgren. The defense will change to a traditional 4-3 alignment. With those major systemic changes come different requirements in players.

"It's going to be a challenge, no question," said General Manager Tom Heckert. "There's going to be some turnover here. But we knew that regardless of the [coaching change] there was going to be turnover here. We have some age on the team and obviously we have to get younger."

The Browns co-led the league last season with 19 players 30 years or older. That's not the preferred roster composition for a team looking up to strong division rivals.

Let's break down the 30-and-up set this way:

Thanks for the memories

Quarterback Jake Delhomme (36) is scheduled to make $5.4 million in the last year of his contract.

Kicker Phil Dawson (35) probably will leave in free agency.

Defensive end Robaire Smith (33) likely will retire. His contract is up and he is coming off a back injury.

Goodbye and good luck

Linebacker Eric Barton (33) and linebacker David Bowens (33) were Mangini locker room leaders whose heavy legs don't fit in the coming 4-3 scheme.

Offensive tackle John St. Clair (33) needs to be replaced.

Defensive lineman Shaun Rogers (31) makes too much money for the effort and production he puts forth. He might stay if agreeable to a pay cut.

Tight end Robert Royal (31) wouldn't seem to be a fit in the West Coast offense.

Keepers

Linebacker Scott Fujita (31) has experience in the 4-3 defense and is one of the best players on defense.

Cornerback Sheldon Brown (31) received a $5 million bonus in a new contract after Heckert traded for him last year. An eventual shift to safety is possible if more cornerbacks can be acquired.

Guard Eric Steinbach (30) is one of the team's most consistent good players.

Long snapper Ryan Pontbriand (31) and safety Nick Sorensen (32) are core special team players.

Tight end Benjamin Watson (30) could be a valuable player in the West Coast system.

Offensive tackle Tony Pashos (30) is an above-average right tackle when healthy.

Defensive end Kenyon Coleman (31) is valuable because the switch to a 4-3 will require more defensive linemen on the roster.

Contracts up, have to re-sign

Quarterback Seneca Wallace (30) probably benefited more from the coaching change than any player. His West Coast experience makes him more valuable because he can take over from Delhomme as Colt McCoy's personal mentor. Wallace could draw interest from Arizona and San Francisco.

Offensive lineman Floyd Womack (33) is an underrated guard and tackle.

Offensive lineman Billy Yates (30) proved a capable backup center and spot starter at guard.

Heckert and Shurmur already have had meetings to decide which direction they need to go at certain positions. The good news is that the Browns are seeking the types of players with which Heckert was familiar while serving as the Philadelphia Eagles' head of personnel while Shurmur worked under coach Andy Reid.

"I think we are on the same page when it comes to players and what we are looking for and how we are going to acquire those players," Heckert said. "I do think we have at least some players that can fit whatever we are going to do. The guys that we don't have, we are just going to have to go out and get."


Good news on labor front? As NFL management and the players union conduct their rhetoric campaigns about the possibility of an owners lockout in 2011, at least one person sees a positive sign in -- of all things -- the number of coaches firings in the NFL this season.

Bob LaMonte, the pre-eminent agent for coaches and NFL executives, said he views the firing of seven coaches this year as a barometer that an owners lockout is more likely to be shorter than longer. Four teams fired coaches during the season -- Denver, Dallas, Minnesota and San Francisco. Three others made changes after the season -- Oakland, Carolina and the Browns.

LaMonte believes that "never in the world" would owners agree to put additional coaches on the payroll if they planned to have a protracted lockout.

"[John] Fox and [Marvin] Lewis had contracts up going into the season," LaMonte said. "We set a barometer this year that if just those two coaches [were let go] and there's no more firings, then I think the lockout would be on and it would be protracted. If there are more, then I thought the lockout would be short. So I think [the seven coaching changes] accelerates the concept of what my barometer said."

LaMonte particularly cited Dallas owner Jerry Jones' firing of Wade Phillips as a positive sign that a lockout would be short. He believes that Jones would not want to add the salary of a new coach to the enormous debt he already carries on the $1.1 billion Cowboys Stadium if Jones felt there would be a protracted work stoppage in 2011.

Of course, Jones was already paying Jason Garrett a healthy sum ($3 million) as Cowboys offensive coordinator.

But it's good to hear at least one independent person voicing optimism about the widening labor dispute.

If a new collective bargaining agreement is not reached by March 3, doomsayers insist the league will shut down completely, with players locked out of team-assisted injury rehabilitation services, free agency and trades coming to a complete halt, and club employees being laid off.


http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2011/01/changes_are_coming_as_clevelan.html

Quote:

---

Kicker Phil Dawson (35) probably will leave in free agency.

---

I don't see that happening. Phil's been here forever, if he was going to leave, he would
ve done it by now.

Didn't a recent article state Dawson sold his house in Cleveland?

Dawson's as good as gone. He'll probably be a Steeler next season.

Why would the Steelers get rid of Shaun Suisham? The guy kills kickoffs, and has only missed 1 FG since he joined the Steelers.

Because for the long haul he's not that good? He's bounced around the league for the past five years.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him go to a team in the AFCN is all I'm saying.

Ummm............. Yay? I can't wait? Blah....

The Steelers Ñust cut Jeff Reed, who had been their kicker for 8 or 9 years because he suddenly hit that older age wall.

They then went out and got a guy who has been nothing but marvelous for them.

There is no way they're going to spend $3 million on another older kicker .... especially when they have a guy who now appears to have put it all together.

Plus, Dawson might entertain the idea that kicking for a better weather team or a dome team just might extend his career years.

I love that guy and his ability to kick in our stadium even in the worst weather. Really hate to see him go.

Where will the Cleveland Browns first address roster moves? Hey, Tony!
Published: Saturday, January 15, 2011, 11:30 PM
By Tony Grossi, The Plain Dealer


Hey, Tony: If the new coaching regime decides to switch the defense to the 4-3, do you see Matt Roth and/or Marcus Benard converting to defensive end? Could it possibly improve their game or are they players best suited as tweeners? -- Peter D, EC, Wis

Hey, Peter: I could see Roth converting. He may be too slow at linebacker as it is and has the size for a 4-3 end. Benard does not, but he could still be utilized as a situational edge rusher, as he is now.

Hey, Tony: I think once again this year the Browns proved that they are one of the slowest teams in the league. We also have a severe weakness on the right side of our offensive line and in our front seven on defense. If you had to put one as your No. 1 priority to fix this off-season, would you chose to add team speed or build up in the trenches? -- Chris Mangosh, Willoughby

Hey, Chris: Probably defensive line. Speed is lacking everywhere, too. Eric Mangini preferred size over speed. We'll see if the coaching change results in a change of size-speed preference.

Hey, Tony: There's a lot of talk here and everywhere about Colt McCoy's arm strength and how it might be a concern during our wonderful winter months. Is it possible that he can increase arm strength through working out/conditioning? -- Chris McGurr, Garfield Heights

Hey, Chris: Possible? I suppose. Mike Holmgren has said he believes McCoy's arm strength will improve as his body matures.

Hey, Tony: Do you foresee the Browns signing any of their free agents -- Abe Elam, Lawrence Vickers, Matt Roth, etc., -- before a collective bargaining is reached? -- Paul Thiel, Crescent Springs, Ky.

Hey, Paul: No. If there is no CBA settlement, it's possible there would be no free agency in 2011 and players whose contracts expired would have them roll over another year, with modest salary increases. That would be chaotic, but I've heard it as a possibility.

Hey, Tony: You're flat out wrong about Colt McCoy's arm strength being an issue, citing his poor play in bad weather. What bad weather? Yes, it was cold the final two games, but there wasn't rain or snow and it wasn't that windy. His throws weren't getting caught in the wind either. The first INT against Baltimore was Mohamed Massaquoi failing to beat 1-on-1 coverage, the weather had nothing to do with it. The next two throws were forced but again had nothing to do with the weather.

Against Pittsburgh, the first INT bounced off Ben Watson's hands, that's not on Colt and again zero to do with the weather. The second one was a miscommunication between him and Massaquoi and the third Colt got blasted from behind by James Harrison. Once again, absolutely nothing to do with the weather. Arm strength is flat out a non-issue with him.

Does he have a cannon? No, we all know that. However, the top quarterbacks in Browns history have a common denominator (among others such as intelligence and resourcefulness, two things Colt has a ton of): Less than ideal arm strength -- Otto Graham, Bernie Kosar, Brian Sipe, Frank Ryan. Your assessment of Colt struggling due to arm strength issues is lazy and inaccurate. -- Kevin S, Arlington, Va.

Hey, Kevin: Even McCoy agreed that the ball is "heavier" in cold weather -- regardless of wind, snow, locust plagues, whatever -- and requires more experience to maintain accuracy under those conditions. The examples you cite above are only the interceptions. I saw a lot of his passes over the past month that did not have enough zip on them, whether they were completed or not. I've also talked to a number of NFL insiders -- GMs, coaches, scouts, and others -- who say that McCoy lasted until the third round, despite having the most wins of any QB in college football history, because of his arm strength.

Finally, you can not name a single quarterback with a northern, outdoor-based NFL team that won anything of note in the past 30 years. Not one. And that includes Kosar and Sipe. Don't take it personally. McCoy's arm strength is a question mark in this location. It wouldn't be if he played in a dome or in the South or West. Even Mike Holmgren admits that.

Hey, Tony: I've just heard you saying we need two legitimate receivers: a No. 1 and a slot. I couldn't agree more. But what about Josh Cribbs? Can he be the slot guy? I believe he's got the physical skills. I can imagine him tearing up defenses with long runs after short passes. Can you, too, or is it just another Browns fan's wishful thinking? -- Miroslav Stefanovic, Serbia

Hey, Miroslav: I'm interested in seeing Cribbs in a well-coordinated, West Coast offense. I'm thinking he'd be more productive.

Hey, Tony: I respectfully have to disagree with your SBTV comment that only strong-armed QBs can be successful in northern cities. I don't think anyone will put Bernie Kosar in the (cannon-arm QB club) and he should have played in two Browns Super Bowls. -- Howard Boles, Peyton, Colo.

Hey, Howard: Another myth. Kosar's arm strength was above average when he entered the NFL and had his best years in 1986 and 1987. I recall him winning a Quarterback Challenge in the off-season because of his accuracy over all depths on the field. He could make any throw. Heck, he invented new throws. But after his elbow injury in the 1988 season opener, Kosar's arm was never the same. All of his other superb traits helped get the Browns to the AFC Championship Game in 1989, but his decline was swift thereafter. Brian Sipe, the Browns' poster boy of below-average arm strength, never won a playoff game. Look it up.

Hey, Tony: Obviously, Troy Polamalu is a very good player. Just curious how his per season stats for eight seasons translates into possible Hall of Fame career -- 3.5 INT, 63 total tackles, 1 sack, 1 force fumble, 10 passes defensed -- your thoughts? -- Robert Burke, Austintown, Ohio

Hey, Robert: Barring unforeseen circumstances, Polamalu is on the fast track to the Hall of Fame. He and Ed Reed easily are two of the best safeties in the history of the NFL. Not even debatable.

Hey, Tony: How was it determined that the Cardinals would pick before the Browns even though they had the same record? -- Jerry J., North Olmsted

Hey, Jerry: The only tiebreaker for draft order is strength of schedule. Arizona's opponents were 119-137 (.465). The Browns' opponents were 146-110 (.570). The team with the weaker schedule gets the higher draft pick because it is judged to have been the worse team.

Hey, Tony: What do you see in your crystal ball for off-season moves? Someone like Shaun Rogers, who seems to have given up on the Browns and is still young enough to make an impact on a contender's defense, could realistically return a third-round pick. Let's be honest, the Browns need all the picks they can get for the upcoming draft. Or, do you think nothing will happen personnel-wise (besides the draft) until a new CBA is hammered out? -- Tim, Winter Haven, Fla.

Hey, Tim: As I understand it, trades involving players are prohibited until a new CBA is resolved. Teams may trade draft picks.

Hey, Tony: Since we have the sixth pick in this year's draft, if there were a lockout throughout the entire 2011 NFL season and there was no record to determine the draft order, would the order be determined by the record of the previous year? Thus, if we pick sixth this year and don't play a single game all of the 2011 season, will we be awarded the sixth pick in the 2012 NFL Draft or will they come up with a new system to determine the order? -- Levi Mendenhall, Springfield, Ohio

Hey, Levi: To my knowledge, the scenario has not been fully analyzed by the NFL because nobody -- nobody -- expects a work stoppage to wipe out the entire 2011 season. Nobody.

Hey, Tony: How come you make excuses for the shortcomings of the coaches you like, for example you used the laughable excuse that "Jon Gruden fell into the veteran trap." Kinda makes you sound like a shill for some coaches. -- Michael B, Dover, Ohio

Hey, Michael: Call it what you will. I think there are two types of coaches -- winners and losers. Winners are the coaches with winning records. Losers are coaches with losing records. It is not complicated. I believe there are underlying reasons why certain coaches win and others don't. I'm talking about career records, not just one or two seasons affected by injuries. Jon Gruden: winner. John Fox: winner. Bill Parcells: winner. I frown at excuses like, "Well, he played a tough schedule." Or, "He didn't have the players." Over the course of a coach's career, those excuses don't wash. Gruden was fired after consecutive seasons of 9-7. Winner.


View full sizeJoshua Gunter / The Plain DealerGeneral Manager Tom Heckert should be more accessible to Browns fans in explaining personnel decisions, says Tony Grossi.
Hey, Tony: Of the Ten Great Browns Mysteries you mentioned regarding last year's dismal season, I think half of them (only three cornerbacks, trading Jerome Harrison, only two running backs, John St Clair, and trading for Jayme Mitchell) came under the responsibility of Tom Heckert since they were personnel decisions. Do you agree and are these questions that Browns fans deserve an answer to, especially since almost all of the blame went to Eric Mangini? -- Bob Ruple, Newbury

Hey, Bob: Technically, you are correct. Heckert was the authority over all personnel decisions. My hunch is that Heckert deferred to Mangini on many in-season personnel decisions. (I don't think Mangini had anything to do with the trade for Mitchell.) But, yes, fans and media deserve answers to these questions. I believe Heckert should be more accessible to answer such questions.

Hey, Tony: If the Browns are going to go with the West Coast offense, don't you think that Brady Quinn would have been a better fit than Colt McCoy? Quinn is bigger and has a better arm for Cleveland weather. He can throw long, proven in the Detroit game. Who made the decision to trade Quinn? Holmgren or Mangini? -- Ernie, Columbus, Ohio

Hey, Ernie: I don't agree at all. McCoy is a better fit than Quinn in the West Coast offense -- or any system. To me, Quinn was too obsessed with body building and appeared too tight to make all the throws. It was strictly Holmgren's call to trade Quinn.

Hey, Tony: If the Browns do switch to the 4-3 defense, wouldn't Shaun Rogers be an absolute beast as a 4-3 defensive end? -- Mark Cesarik, Chicago

Hey, Mark: Rogers has the most ability of any player on the Browns' roster. But he does not dedicate himself completely to being the best possible player he can be. His best position probably is as a penetrating, one-gap tackle in a 4-3 -- not as an end.

Hey, Tony: Everyone is talking about Colt McCoy's arm strength as if it is a unchangeable handicap. Is it possible for a QB, like Colt McCoy, to hit the weights and suddenly have that condition reversed? -- Andy Frecka, Moscow, Russia

Hey, Andy: Improved? Possibly. Reversed? Not likely.

Hey, Tony: You've said that neither Mohamed Massaquoi nor Brian Robiskie is a good fit as a slot receiver. Is Josh Cribbs good in this role? It seems that it's always a positive for the Browns to get the ball to Cribbs when he has running room. -- David Skeen, Cedar Park, Texas

Hey, David: I would think that Cribbs would benefit greatly from a switch to a well-coordinated, West Coast offense.

Hey, Tony: Do you think that it would be worth it to take a flier on Matt Flynn, Green Bay's backup? He runs the West Coast offense and seems to have the arm strength to play in the cold/wind. -- Mike T, Eastlake

Hey, Mike: Many in the NFL feel Flynn could be a very tradeable commodity for Green Bay. His name has been mentioned to me as a possibility that might interest the Browns, but that was before the team fell in love with Colt McCoy. I don't see it happening now.

Hey, Tony: I know our offense has been bad for a long time. With that said the local media and many fans have been obsessed with ... the West Coast offense coming to town, and lots of throwing for Colt McCoy, and we need an offensive head coach ... and finally the oddest one to me "you can't win in the modern NFL without a prolific passsing attack." Then I watch the Ravens and Jets play with killer defense, run-first offense with an OK passing game dominate other teams. The Steelers, too, have made defense their primary strength for the past four decades.

We finally are getting a tough-nosed defense in Cleveland and with another good draft we could have a good to great defense. My fear is all the focus on a pass-first offense in this town will not go well against the rough and tumble AFC North. Defense never goes out of style! -- Michael Spitale, Galena, Ohio

Hey, Michael: That said, the Browns' offense must come out of the dark ages for the team to be considered a playoff contender. The Ravens won a Super Bowl in 2000 with defense and running, but they realize that 10 years later, the game has changed to the point they must upgrade their passing offense. Same with Pittsburgh. The Steelers won the Super Bowl two years ago with the most prolific passing attack in their history. Defense never goes out of style, but it alone does not win championships anymore.

Hey, Tony: How many draft picks do the Browns have in the 2011 draft? -- George Grace, Austintown, Ohio

Hey, George: I believe they have their picks in every round but the seventh (for Seneca Wallace) and also own Denver's pick in the sixth round (for Brady Quinn).

Hey, Tony: Has there been any report on the rehabilitation progress of Montario Hardesty? -- Dave, St. Simons Island, Ga.

Hey, Dave: He is rehabbing well, looks good and is expected to be ready for the start of training camp.

Hey, Tony: In your end of season player rankings, how could you put Mike Bell -- who did nothing for the Browns -- ahead of Blake Costanzo, who was one of our best special teamers. -- Angelo Costanzo, Cleveland

Hey, Angelo: I must have had bad pizza the night before and had a brain cramp. Or was it too much red wine?

Hey, Tony: I know the Browns have many needs. No. 1 need being wide receiver. Do you think Chris Chambers could be a help and a possible mentor to our wide receivers? The guy has always been a class act. -- Tim Brehm, Strongsville

Hey, Tim: I would bring in as many receivers as possible and have them compete. Guys like Mohamed Massaquoi and Brian Robiskie need competition to get better. No more entitlements.

Hey, Tony: If Mike Tomlin or John Harbaugh were hypothetically hired a few years ago as the Browns' head coach, do you think they would have taken the team to the playoffs or suffered the same fate as Eric Mangini? -- Steve Cornelius, Avon Lake

Hey, Steve: What you're asking is if I think Tomlin and Harbaugh are better coaches than Mangini. My answer is yes and yes. Truthfully, I don't think it's close.

Hey, Tony: Any word on the leading candidates for head coach of the 2013 Cleveland Browns, after the 2011-2012 head coach is fired? -- Andrew Steckler, Beachwood

Hey, Andrew: Bill Cowher and Jon Gruden.

Hey, Tony: I have noticed that you and other reporters have commented a lot on the fact that all of the high-level guys in the Browns' organization are represented by Bob LaMonte. The coaching search also seemed somewhat limited to his clients. Is this strange to you? Have you heard of any other organizations partially basing their most important positions on representation? I can't imagine top-level teams doing this. -- Ananth Thyagarajan, Richmond, Va.

Hey, Ananth: Well, I was the first media member in the Cleveland market to point out the immense influence LaMonte has on the current Browns organization. Is it strange? No. LaMonte is controlling the front office in Denver in similar fashion. This is the way business is done in the NFL, in many cases. It doesn't mean it's the right way to do business, but it's not particularly uncommon. I think it's up to the owner to avoid these situations.

-- Tony

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2011/01/where_will_the_cleveland_brown.html

Quote:

---

Quarterback Seneca Wallace (30) probably benefited more from the coaching change than any player. His West Coast experience makes him more valuable because he can take over from Delhomme as Colt McCoy's personal mentor. Wallace could draw interest from Arizona and San Francisco.

---

Good write up ....

For what it's worth, I don't see Wallace being anyones mentor. He demostrated none of that this past season..

He might be a weasel, but he's Holmgren's weasel.

Me neither. I'd bet Holmgren and Heckert would like him to stay, but I'd also bet that he thinks he can stand a better chance to start somewhere else where they don't have a young guy the team is solidly behind. Likely his best bet in his mind would be to backup for a team running the WCO with an aging QB. ?

And like you guys I don't see his desire to help mentor Colt in the WCO. That would be accepting a role as career backup and he probably can be that anywhere. If he had a head on his shoulder he should know, especially after last season, that he's one play away from starting and depending upon that one play he could be required to finish a season and have a chance to totally beat out the other guy for the starting position the nest season if he really thinks he's that good, and he ain't bad and probably better in his own element as we are now in. He's not old in football years because he hasn't played much. He could still have plenty of good years left in his career.

But too, like last season, he also knows if he does have to play it may be for only a few games until the starter healed. I think he could have gotten more but he made a monumental mistake last season by speaking up and landing in Mangini's doghouse. I'm sure of that because he retracted his statements soon after, did a 180 in what he was saying and even sat on the bench healthy while a limping Delhomme was run out on the field when Colt was injured.

Well, even though that probably left a real bad taste in his mouth he needs to know that sort of thing is over now and that being here he can further thrive in his WCO because we'll now have coaches here who teach it.

He doesn't have to accept a backup role forever. He can stay here, be back in the WCO, work his ass off, mentor Colt, get what playing time he can and maybe get a chance like Matt Schaub did by impressing the heck out of people in his limited chances. Plus, and I know this as do many of you, the best way to learn something more solidly than you knew it before is to teach someone else. As willing as Delhomme is to mentor he is one expensive mentor who really can't even backup anymore. I can't see a scenario where Delhomme will be here in 2011.

Seneca is one year older than Schaub and has one more year NFL experience. Before Schaub went to Houston he'd only started 2 games in Atlanta with 134 passing attempts. Before coming here Wallace started 14 games in Seattle with 556 attempts.

It's a chance based on a lot of things going right but chances to be a starting QB in the NFL don't come easily. There's only 32 of them so you have to go after it any and every way you can. But for now we need him and things could work out very well for him in the future.

These are all things Holmgren will be saying to him if he wants him to stick because I called Mike and we talked about this. I'm just trying to think of reasons for Wallace to stick here if we want him because he is one hell of a good backup in our new system.

I really have to wonder about Grossi and his knowledge of football ..... especially the NFL.

Players beat other players to win in the NFL. Talent wins. In some cases, a slightly less talented team can beat a more talented team, but in almost every game played, the more talented team wins.

I look at what we had here last year. Holmgren would not have been successful as the head coach here last year. He didn;t have a QB. Holmgren made the final call to dump Quinn, so I am relatively sure that he wouldn't have beeb able to do much with him either. Anderson imploded.

No QB generally = No Wins in the NFL. I suppose that Grossi hasn't tumbled to this simple fact. The Browns haven't had a QB all year long. We have a rookie, who had rookie ups and downs, but no stable, reliable, and capable guy who can be relied on to lead the team to victory.

Good coaches can "win" 2-4 games/year with scheme, motivation, etc. A Great coach might win his team 4-5 games through his coaching and planning. The rest of the season is great players beating other comparable or lesser players.

Quote:

---

Wallace kind of pissed me off this season. He seemed like a weasel who never bought in to Mangini or the process. His comments in the media really frustrated me.

---

Dang, I'm a weasel too.

Although I did buy into the process, and still do, I just didn't buy into it being the stock excuse/answer for close losses and coaching failures.

Regarding Wallace's comments, well, he was frustrated too. But he should have kept his mouth shut because it landed him in the doghouse and the team suffered while he sat on the bench while a gimpy and ineffective Delhomme replaced the injured McCoy and then went on to start the next few games. That should have been Wallace starting IMO.

Player A is a very talented player. Unfortunately he landed on a team with a loser-type coach. His coach rarely puts him in a good situation to succeed. There are some other talented players on the team but the same with them. Their strengths are not maximized and they are often asked to take on responsibilities that magnify their weaknesses.

The coach starts and plays players he considers to be safe-bets. Players who have experience and who he's known and is comfortable coaching. He would like all the players to share the same coachable traits as these players and strives to fill his roster with similar types. There are other players whose strengths could be used don't play as much because the coach is not comfortable coaching them and/or he feels they lack the proper attitude to succeed. The coach considers these players risky-bets.

The coach is lacking in his ability to successfully implement his scheme and philosophy although they are good ones. He stubbornly sticks to things that haven't worked for him as yet, resisting adjustments to his plan believing that by doing it over and over eventually it will work because it's a good scheme and philosophy. The coach claims that they just need more time for his plan to become second nature and begin showing the rewards.

On game day the coach lacks confidence in his players to make certain plays and so he plays it safe accepting less than he really wants but feels he is not asking his players to accomplish something that he believes they can't accomplish. He takes a very conservative approach that sometimes makes his players feel that he doesn't trust them to do well. The team likes the coach and try hard for him but since they are not put in the best situations to succeed the results are often less than their best.

The team obviously lacks play makers at some key positions and the coach feels that he is somewhat hamstrung by that and he looks forward to upgrading those positions to make the team more successful.

Overall the team doesn't do well at this stage. They sometimes do well but seem not to have learned from it and slip back into long lapses of failure. They are up and down like this and cannot build upon their successes in a lasting way so they are inconsistent and hard to figure. The coach sees his players make game killing mistakes even though they play close games. It wouldn't take much more to get the win. The coach admits that it's never the fault of any one player, that it's a breakdown of several or many but is at a loss in what to do about it.

To the media and the fans there is obviously a lack of talent which is directly related to the lack of success for the team. Everyone knows you need talent to win games. What's a poor coach to do?






Player B is a talented player. Fortunately he landed on a team with a winner-type coach. This coach accurately evaluates player B's strengths and uses him in ways that maximizes those strengths. Rarely is he asked to take on responsibilities that magnify his weaknesses. He, like the other players on the team who are accurately evaluated, are put in the best situations to succeed, and so they often do.

This coach does not rely on familiarity regarding who gets the most playing time. This coach considers each player's strengths and puts them in those type of roles. This coach is no more comfortable coaching one player over another so that doesn't enter into his considerations of who starts and plays a majority of the snaps. That is because this coach understands that people are different and need to be coached in different ways individually. He knows it's a pipe dream to expect everyone to be of the same character so he adjusts his coaching style towards each player and instructs his staff to do the same. He is as comfortable coaching one guy just as much as the other.

This coach also has the ability to see when his overall plan is not working due perhaps to his players strengths and weaknesses so he makes adjustments to his scheme and philosophy believing that success as a whole is more important than forcing his original plans to work. He would love to be able to implement his scheme but realizes that it will not work well at this stage so he is flexible.

This coach is confident in his coaching abilities and that translates into being confident in his player's abilities. He trusts his players to execute because he trusts his coaching has gotten through to them. He expects a lot from his players and challenges them to excel. The players appreciate the confidence that the coach has in them and they accept the challenge and often overachieve. They do everything in their power to accomplish the task at hand and show the coach that his confidence and trust in them is not unwarranted.

Overall the team is doing well. They learn from their mistakes and seem to be consistently on the rise. On occasion they will have a lapse but it is short lived and immediately they are back to being more successful on a consistent basis.

To the media and the fans this team has plenty of talent to take it to the next level and are excited for the future. The players are in high regard nationally as well because they prove on a consistent basis that they can compete with anyone and win the games they should win and win their share of the others. They never play down to the level of bad competition but always, regardless of the opponent, play at a high level and go after each game playing like it were their last and like they want it more than the opponent. The coach is considered lucky to have a roster of such talented players and it looks like they will sustain and improve upon their successes for some time to come.




The moral of the story is that some coaches can get the best out of their players making them appear more talented than other players who are being coached by a different coach who struggles getting the best out of his players. The team that is supposed to have more talent will usually beat the struggling team that it is supposed has less talent. In fact, the actual talent level of each team may be equal.

The important thing here is that the winner-type coach could probably take the loser-type coaches roster and be more successful than they are now and make them appear to be much more talented simply by being a better coach.

Now it's true that if the team is full of untalented players then there's little anyone can do other than get the best out them and still be consistently lacking. But as we've heard many times repeated, all of the NFL players are talented and all of the teams have very talented players.

But players who are not used to their strengths and are not put in the best situations to succeed appear to lack talent while players who are best used to their strengths and are put in the best situations to succeed appear to be very talented.

Sometimes that is the only difference. A team can always upgrade their talent level because obviously some guys are more talented than others. It's often a God-given thing. But even the level of NFL quality talent they have now can be appreciably more successful and consistent if used correctly. What it takes to do that is a good coach who understands people and talent evaluation, is a great teacher and possesses exemplary people skills every bit as much as he understands football.

If all this is not true then there is no such thing as a good coach vs. a bad coach. Talent would then be the only criteria for how good a team is. Draft and otherwise acquire the best talent and they wouldn't even need a coach but to tell them when to get on the bus. But we all know better than that.


Just sayin'

Quote:

---

It could have been he was simply too stupid and believed a gimpy Delhomme was better than Wallace and gave us a better chance to win. He just never gave me the impression he was that stupid.

---

He's not stupid. But his stubbornness could be incorrectly mistaken as stupid.

Dawson is a 35 year old kicker on a team that is probably (at best) 2 years away from contending.

Vickers is a block only FB on a team moving to the WCO. He's not a runner. He can't catch. He fits about as well as a size 2 bikini on a 600# fat man. He's almost certainly gone.

Where is this stereotype that Vickers can't catch coming from?

I've always seen him as an excelent FB with great hands (for a FB of course)

Vickers can catch much better than he can pass!

Huh?

He drops as many as he catches.

He caught 4 passes for 15 yards. Hillis caught 61 for 477. lol

In 5 years, Vickers has 41 catches. This includes time where we have had checkdown experts in Frye and Quinn throwing the ball.

He's a great, great blocker ... probably the best blocking FB in the league. I think that he'll be replaced with a more consistent pass catching FB next year. Hell, Hillis may even move to FB with Hardesty or another scatback type joining him in the backfield.

The WCO needs excellent pass catchers everywhere. Vickers is many things, but he's not an excellent pass receiver.

41 catches in 5 years .....

And probably half as many drops.

Could you highlight some plays that you felt were really good receptions?

None specifically but I remember plays where the ball was thrown past him and he made one handed grabs, probably his second year in the league or so. The fact that he doesn't have alot of receptiosn doesn't mean he can't catch the ball. And I don't know where you are getting the impression he drops alot of balls, when he has been used in the passing game he has caught almost everything thrown his way, might have a drop here or there but it's not a problem. And i'm sure most of the board would agree with me.

Here are a couple of videos. Nothing spectacular but theres 3 videos with 3 td receptions.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/vid...mp;fr=slv8-tyc8



And what about his 15 receptions for 123 yards in 2003? Or his 28 receptions for 290 yards in 2004 for Colorado? Or his 26 receptions for 152 yards in 2005?

That's college.

He hasn't done it with any regularity in the NFL.

Lots of guys perform in college and not in the NFL.

We'll see what happens ..... but I doubt that the Browns look at Vickers and see a WCO FB.

With all due respect YTown, we still need to run the ball and up until this year Vickers had QB's who could not throw the sort passes and put the ball in a catch able zone for anyone playing the position.

Tom Rathman made the PB playing in the WCO for his lead blocking not for his receptions.

Who cares if it was college, he could catch then he can catch now. You just don't forget how to catch a ball. He just hasn't been used as a receiver so automatically people think he can't catch.

They would be foolish not to look at Vickers and not see a WCO fullback because he is perfectly capable.

We'll see what Heckert/Holmgren/Shurmur think when free agency starts.

I wonder how many snaps the FB got in St Louis or Philly this past year, because that would be an indicator of how much they use a traditional FB.

Mack Strong got a ton of work in Seattle when Holmgren and Shaun Alexander were there, even after they left and still ran the wco.

That's true.

We'll see what happens. I guess them going either way would not surprise me.