|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
Quote:
So I'm convinced that Holmgren did it because Mangini seemed to be turning the corner and because he didn't believe 1 year was enough to evaluate a HC.
Oh- you mean like he said, 3 or 4 times in various pressers? Wow.
Quote:
You're really prepared to debate that keeping Eric Mangini as the head coach last season did not set the team's progress back a year?
AP:
I am, if he isn't. It's impossible to say. Who would he have brought in- just 2 months after signing his own contract? How well would the new hire(s) have worked out- considering it would have been the exact same scenario as we have now? Let's remember- it wasn't just Mangini who was retained... it was pretty much the entire staff.... so anybody suggesting that Ryan be kept while Mangini was tossed would be missing the point. The point was: the entire staff seemed to be turning it around at the end of '09. Mike explained all this time and again- and that explanation made perfect sense. He was flexible enough to give that staff another year- for a true evaluation, before making his decision. Speaking of which, I believe that had the turnaround continued, that staff would still be here. I heard of no rancor or inability to work together from those guys, and each had good things to say about each other- through the season, and even after the divorce. It only became imperative to make the move once Holmy saw that the 4-game streak as an aberration.
One more point: it's entirely possible that taking your course of action would have- as you said- "set us back" even further. As it went, Holmes had an entire year to scope out his personnel, consult with Heckert regarding draft acquisitions, make contacts, and lay groundwork that couldn't possibly have been established after just getting his job. So... with a thrown-together unit of 'second choices' and compromises, it entirely possible that he'd be forced to blow up the interim regime to get what he now has. Bet that would have Dawgs howling even louder than some are right now (if such a thing could even be possible...  )
Hindsight's a luxury only we spectators get to enjoy. For my money, Holmes was principled, disciplined and methodical... and that's always wiser than making dramatic changes when all the facts haven't been collected.
You see them as mistakes. Others see them as the cost of doing bidniss in the NFL. Each to his own, I guess.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Quote:
Good.
I've had no problems with Pat the Head Coach. I've been scratching my head about Pat the OC since game one. From the offensive packages (which are smart) being applied to new, young players in a new system (stOOpid), to choosing to start guys like Alex Smith and Cribbs over Moore and Robiskie, and to all the inexcusable penalties like too many men in motion over and over again, I have been wondering what he thinks out there.
Keep the offense, but get a veteran NCO (Thanks, Clem) guy in here.
I listened to Holmy's presser..he said that Shurmur had enough on his plate and he wants him to focus on coaching..Now he did say he expected PS to want to remain the OC but that they will look to hire one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I appreciate the courteous reply, Clem. Having said that, you didn't address the second portion of my statement (very possibly because it was appended to my initial post after the fact). The issue isn't that he fired Eric Mangini, but when he did it.
The bottom line is that Holmgren was not in the position to be "nice" or "fair" to Mangini. His job is to turn around the Cleveland Browns franchise. When he was hired he had to make the decision to either get rid of Mangini or keep him around for the long haul. He did neither of those things. What he did do amounts to, in essence, hiring Mangini for a year and then canning him. Hindsight has nothing to do with it.
Had he chosen to fire him prior to 2010, the growing pains we are experiencing now with new systems in place would have taken place last year. There would be no talk of rookie head coach getting no offseason to prepare in his first year. Instead there would be continuity from the systems installed last year. Our draft strategy in 2010 would have seen little change because it was still conducted by Holmgren and Tom Heckert, and our draft selections were not system-specific.
Asking who they would've hired is merely a diversion of the issue, especially when you consider who he ultimately did hire.
In short, had Holmgren made a decision on Mangini's fate at the proper time instead of playing wait-and-see, the team and the fans would not hace been deprived in 2011 of either further continuity under Mangini, or continuity from a no-longer-rookie head coach. The realization needs to be made that a 5-7 year plan is no longer acceptable in today's NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually he's spot on.
Well, that's your opinion, and I don't agree even a little.
You're really prepared to debate that keeping Eric Mangini as the head coach last season did not set the team's progress back a year?
By all means, please defend the following statement: Retaining Eric Mangini as the head coach of the Cleveland Browns for the 2010 season and firing him at the conclusion of the season did not set the team's progress back a year.
I'm not prepared nor do I feel a need to defend anything I didn't say. All I'm saying to you is, we disagree.. if you don't like that, there is an ignore button you can push that will eliminate any chance you and I will disagree again.. your call
#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: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Well, when you disagree with one side of an either/or statement, logic dictates that you agree with the other side, whether you say it explicitly or not. That's just the way it is. Don't be one of those posters who implies and insinuates and does everything else but declare something outright, and then go to the "I didn't say that". It's wishy-washy, and I know you're better than that.
I'm not going to put you on ignore. You're an entertaining poster who says a lot of things that I agree with. I'm simply asking you to defend your implication, in the spirit of debate, that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
Well, when you disagree with one side of an either/or statement, logic dictates that you agree with the other side, whether you say it explicitly or not. That's just the way it is. Don't be one of those posters who implies and insinuates and does everything else but declare something outright, and then go to the "I didn't say that". It's wishy-washy, and I know you're better than that.
I'm not going to put you on ignore. You're an entertaining poster who says a lot of things that I agree with. I'm simply asking you to defend your implication, in the spirit of debate, that's all.
It can't be defended. it's clear that NOT firing Mangini from the get go put the team a year behind.. Can't see how it could be anything else. But, and it's a BIG BUT.. it was still the right thing to do.. How do you reconcile the right thing when it occured from what is clearly wrong in Hindsight?
I wasn't upset that Holmgren didn't give up on Mangini when he got here. I wanted it to work with Mangini. I thought, and still do, that mangini is a smart guy.. good skills and had the team playing tough all the time.
But, as it turns out, that just wasn't enough. Given that it's pretty clear that Holmgren wanted a more of a WCO and different style of D.. it was almost a certainty that Mangini would eventually have to go unless he made major strides..
And he didn't. so he's gone. and that's exactly as it should be.
But hey, that's JMO
#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: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
You seem to have some notion that I have a problem with Holmgren tearing down and starting over. You're wrong; I don't. I'm cool with it. I have a problem with the timing, as I've outlined, but it was pretty obviously something that needed to be done.
Fair point - I can agree or at least agree with your thinking.
Quote:
What I don't like is when self-imposed problems are used as excuses. And other than the injury issues, all of our problems are self-imposed. Rookie head coach with no off-season, misfit defensive front-seven players, subpar offensive personnel...all problems of the front office's own making. As for injuries...as YTown pointed out, they're part of the game. Every team has them.
I can agree with this as well. I think i've posted before though it's a mixed bag for me. I never want to "rely" on the excuse(s) of the hardships we have had. AND I will point out that I do entirely agree with your assessment that they were "self-imposed." But ... I can't help but still believe some of those problems would have to have been dealt with at any point; whether now, 1 year ago, or maybe down the road.
Quote:
Do they play a part? Sure. Do they excuse it? Hell no. Will Mike Holmgren's seat start to get warm if his team can't win half of their games three years into his tenure? I'd expect nothing else. At some point it has to be recognized that teams turn around franchises that have been just as bad as our own in less time than we have been trying to do so, and ask, "what are they doing that we aren't?"
The only thing about injuries is that young teams without depth cannot survive when their starters are injured. I point to the Packers as one of the best examples (maybe one of the luckiest?) ... when their 1's and even 2's go down, they have legitimate depth. I assume that depth comes from good drafting over time AND being in the same system over time.
We might have both of those, but neither yet. I mean ... we sign backups from other teams and then those guys start here after all ... and it's just due to the lack of talent and depth. It is being taken care of but I still maintain it won't be done overnight and we still might not be able to have it done 5 weeks in.
Other than that I agree with a lot of what you say and see your point.
The only thing I dislike is how I can "view" DTers from a work computer throughout the day but it won't let me login and post there 
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
U guys can argue the if 's,whats and so on but a few of us told this whole board that MH should have canned Gini initially..we understood why he didn't but it did set the team back..had they gotten ,and we'll say Shurmur and Juron a year earlier things would be much different..U'd even have a different QB starting now..who ,I don't know but that 2010 draft would have been different to a degree...but carry on..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well, when you disagree with one side of an either/or statement, logic dictates that you agree with the other side, whether you say it explicitly or not. That's just the way it is. Don't be one of those posters who implies and insinuates and does everything else but declare something outright, and then go to the "I didn't say that". It's wishy-washy, and I know you're better than that.
I'm not going to put you on ignore. You're an entertaining poster who says a lot of things that I agree with. I'm simply asking you to defend your implication, in the spirit of debate, that's all.
It can't be defended. it's clear that NOT firing Mangini from the get go put the team a year behind.. Can't see how it could be anything else. But, and it's a BIG BUT.. it was still the right thing to do.. How do you reconcile the right thing when it occured from what is clearly wrong in Hindsight?
I wasn't upset that Holmgren didn't give up on Mangini when he got here. I wanted it to work with Mangini. I thought, and still do, that mangini is a smart guy.. good skills and had the team playing tough all the time.
But, as it turns out, that just wasn't enough. Given that it's pretty clear that Holmgren wanted a more of a WCO and different style of D.. it was almost a certainty that Mangini would eventually have to go unless he made major strides..
And he didn't. so he's gone. and that's exactly as it should be.
But hey, that's JMO
That's the type of reply I was hoping to get. I agree with just about everything you said there. I'm assuming that when you say "the right thing to do" you are referring to keeping Mangini for 2010. Personally I can't say that it was either right or wrong. Either decision would've been understandable and acceptable to me. I simply feel that if he was going to retain him, as he did, Holmgren should've been prepared to commit to Mangini for than one season, especially considering his talk of "one year isn't enough time", along with his statements now about how Colt is essentially a rookie this year, indicating his willingness to weigh past actions less heavily against the current situation.
Now, if Holmgren felt from square on that the fundamental differences in philosophy would be too much to overcome at any point then he should've pulled the plug, fairness be damned. I think that may have been his initial intention, actually, until he met with Mangini and put himself in the coach's shoes. Keep in mind that he'd never had to fire a head coach before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, when you disagree with one side of an either/or statement, logic dictates that you agree with the other side, whether you say it explicitly or not. That's just the way it is. Don't be one of those posters who implies and insinuates and does everything else but declare something outright, and then go to the "I didn't say that". It's wishy-washy, and I know you're better than that.
I'm not going to put you on ignore. You're an entertaining poster who says a lot of things that I agree with. I'm simply asking you to defend your implication, in the spirit of debate, that's all.
It can't be defended. it's clear that NOT firing Mangini from the get go put the team a year behind.. Can't see how it could be anything else. But, and it's a BIG BUT.. it was still the right thing to do.. How do you reconcile the right thing when it occured from what is clearly wrong in Hindsight?
I wasn't upset that Holmgren didn't give up on Mangini when he got here. I wanted it to work with Mangini. I thought, and still do, that mangini is a smart guy.. good skills and had the team playing tough all the time.
But, as it turns out, that just wasn't enough. Given that it's pretty clear that Holmgren wanted a more of a WCO and different style of D.. it was almost a certainty that Mangini would eventually have to go unless he made major strides..
And he didn't. so he's gone. and that's exactly as it should be.
But hey, that's JMO
That's the type of reply I was hoping to get. I agree with just about everything you said there. I'm assuming that when you say "the right thing to do" you are referring to keeping Mangini for 2010. Personally I can't say that it was either right or wrong. Either decision would've been understandable and acceptable to me. I simply feel that if he was going to retain him, as he did, Holmgren should've been prepared to commit to Mangini for than one season, especially considering his talk of "one year isn't enough time", along with his statements now about how Colt is essentially a rookie this year, indicating his willingness to weigh past actions less heavily against the current situation.
Now, if Holmgren felt from square on that the fundamental differences in philosophy would be too much to overcome at any point then he should've pulled the plug, fairness be damned. I think that may have been his initial intention, actually, until he met with Mangini and put himself in the coach's shoes. Keep in mind that he'd never had to fire a head coach before.
Glad you liked the response better.
it's funny. In his presser yesterday, holmgren was asked about what he's talked to Shurmur about and how he's handling the pressure and criticism. (or something similar to that)
Holmgren said that it's interesting that when he went to Green Bay as a first time HC, he went 1-6 and he mentioned that one win was pure luck or he'd have been 0-7. So he knows about the criticism that Shumur is feeling.
He mentioned that when you take a job like this, you know that there will be second guessing, criticism etc..
As for the Mangini thing, I really hate spending too much time on the subject, it's yesterdays news and unless you wanna be like some who feel it's important to say "I told you so", the subject is exhausted..
#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: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
J/C
From what I heard from Mikes presser he said mostly what Ive said, Shurmur needs a OC to handle the nuts and bolts of things so he can work on more important game planning during the week.
He will still be calling the plays and in the mean time the OC will be working with the the players and coach durning game time much as Mangini and Ryan did.
Im happy and I think the team will be better for it over the long haul.
I dont expect a "BIG" name OC to come here, probably an up and coming position coach that is familiar with the NCO style. It may even be a coach currently here now that gets promoted and we bring in another guy to fill that role.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
I've had no problems with Pat the Head Coach. I've been scratching my head about Pat the OC since game one. From the offensive packages (which are smart) being applied to new, young players in a new system (stOOpid),
New, young players? Who else is there? Gotta start them some place. May as well be in the system that's going to be run. Otherwise, when do you start running the new offense? Multi-packages are a part of it and we don't have veterans to run them.
Quote:
... to choosing to start guys like Alex Smith and Cribbs over Moore and Robiskie...
Smith is the only TE to have any prior experience in the WCO. So that makes some sense playing him over Moore especially considering he was in the beginning of evaluating the offensive players in the new system. Cribbs is a known play maker, especially in the open field. He's also a gutsy veteran. It's understandable to try an get him the ball in the new system.
So you play a guy who has experience, can block and does catch the ball when thrown to. Maybe not as talented as Moore but perhaps more dependable and versatile from the get go. Maybe it's an example of playing a veteran over a younger guy.
Everybody knows Cribbs. Not so much Robiskie. Cribbs because he's made plays, not so much Robiskie because he hasn't. Cribbs is a veteran whereas Robiskie's a risky young player in contrast. Do you sit the playmaker and play the guy who seldom makes plays?
Quote:
...and to all the inexcusable penalties like too many men in motion over and over again, I have been wondering what he thinks out there.
I'm certain, no, I'll guarantee it's not Shurmur's design to have two men in motion at the same time. In his 12 years of coaching on the NFL level he's probably caught wind that it's not permitted by rule. What's happening is one guy is not getting set before the other guy moves. It's a simple case of the players being so new to the system and not executing properly.
I'm not excusing mistakes if they are mistakes nor playing devil's advocate. Just once again taking ya to school. 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
In short, had Holmgren made a decision on Mangini's fate at the proper time instead of playing wait-and-see, the team and the fans would not hace been deprived in 2011 of either further continuity under Mangini, or continuity from a no-longer-rookie head coach. The realization needs to be made that a 5-7 year plan is no longer acceptable in today's NFL.
Had Mangini actually turned the team around and won some games in 2010 and had the team on the upward move then the decision would have been a wise one and 2011 could have been a great year with him as head coach. (fat chance)
But Holmgren was fair and gave the guy a fair chance and it didn't work.
Hindsight says he should have canned him right off the bat. At the time though, as much as I disliked Mangini, even my eyebrows raised at the 2009 finish and wondered if the little man had surprised me and actually got this team going in the right direction. Unfortunately he didn't.
A milder, gentler way of looking at it which works for me is that it's just one year. I've been a fan since I was 8 years old. That's 51 years. I've seen the best and the worst of the Browns. Since 1999 it's been pretty much the worst of them. So I says to myself, "Self, how much difference does one year make?"
If there was something good to take from it, and there always is, it's that Holmgren had a year to learn his new job and the time to make a good decision on how he intended to move forward.
It appears they are on the right track and heading in the right direction with a plan in which they are comitted to and following through with. So it's one year later than it could have been. So what?
It may be important to you but not so much to me. I'm not trying to change your outlook on it. Just offering mine for your approval.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
..Now he did say he expected PS to want to remain the OC but that they will look to hire one.
But Shurmur will still likely do the play calling. He said that too. He said Shurmur could kick the "nuts and bolts" over to someone else.
I'm thinking that's why they didn't hire an OC for this year. As he said they couldn't find the right guy... the right fit. I believe that right guy, the right fit, is someone who would be the OC but not call plays on game day.
From what Holmgren said, two different times, I don't expect Shurmur to give up play calling duties.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
It appears they are on the right track and heading in the right direction with a plan in which they are comitted to and following through with. So it's one year later than it could have been. So what?
It certainly does appear that they are on some sort of track. It's far too early to say that its the right one though.
As for it being a year later...you say so what, I say that I've watched the same awful on-field performance and head-scratching off-field moves as you have for the past 13 years, and I'm tired of it. Tired of watching people with no true investment in the Cleveland Browns come in and take a bunch of Randy Lerner's money, give the fan base a bunch of lip service, and then take a giant steaming crap on the middle of the field. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's a purely emotional response. I get that. I also feel that its a response that I'm perfectly entitled to have. My dad was raised a Browns fan by his dad, has had season tickets his whole life, was at their last NFL championship victory, saw all of the legendary greats play, and passed that tremendous fandom on to me. I'd really like to share a winning football team with him the way he did with his dad. So far, the closest we've come is a win over the Pats in '94 and a few exciting flash-in-the-pan shootouts in '07.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
Adam: 13 years? THIRTEEN YEARS???Oh, my, son... I want to say that "my heart goes out to you"... but I need to catch my breath (from laughing) first...  I feel ya, young Dawg- I really do. In the first op-ed I wrote for another fansite, I said: "Browns fandom is a cherished family heirloom: handed down by one generation to the next...like Grampa's bamboo flyrod or Grammy's bone china." I meant it then, back in '06... and I still stand by it. You really do have the right to your emotional response, and I'd never be the one to try to diminish that. It's "family" we're talkin' about, after all. But, if I could- I'd also like to offer you some advice- from a grizzled Olde Dawg who's suffered through: The Nick Skorich and early Forrest Gregg years "Red Right 88" "The Drive" "The Fumble" "The Theft" (the partial-birth abortion known as): "The Return" AND 13 [snicker] years of the same stuff you've seen.... "It's OK to love your team, but love them for Life-like a marriage. If you love them from season to season, they'll break your heart more often than they'll make it soar." My Pops left us in '79. I'd have loved nothing better than to have shared a Super Bowl win with him (at least I have the '64 Championship, even though I was a little kid). Since I can't, I've kept the flame, and passed the torch to my nephews (who worshipped Their Gramps, btw). Perhaps some day, I'll cash in 5 or 6 SS checks, and take them all to a SB game that features the Browns... but if not, I'll be cool with committing to something bigger than myself... and knowing that they'll keep the flame for me. THAT's what Browns Fandom really is. You're part of a legacy that started long before you, and will extend past your days (now that Art is outta the picture) .... time to assume your trur role in all of this, and take a deep breath. I'd guess that Your Pops doesn't get as worked up as you, does he? 13 years, indeed. p.s. Digya to death, Young Dawg- don't give in to despair. The Journey IS the adventure.... .02
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
In 13 years of watching he has seen the team do nothing but suck butt. At least older fans saw them make playoff apperances. Adam has seen them in the playoffs once. Why should he support a team that has done nothing but lose since he has watched them? The 80's Browns seem like a popular kids fairytale.
I am jealous of guys that saw the team be relevant for once. It sucks to have your hopes crushed, but I've never had a reason to have hope, when all I've ever witnessed is the team being a loser.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Well, If you'd like I can add in the slightly more successful but still fruitless years between '86 and '95, plus the three years with no team. I just didn't feel the need to go back that far. I've been going to Browns games with my dad since 1985 or '86, when I was 4 or 5 years old. I've seen the Browns get beat in person down at Three Rivers Stadium. I was at their last playoff win, at the Muni in '94 when they beat the Pats. I've been around a little bit. But the most relevant that the team has ever been during my lifetime is when I was old enough to get excited but too young to truly comprehend it. I sorely hope that it changes, purely for selfish reasons.
My dad? It makes him furious. He once said to me, "I'll be dead before this team ever wins a Super Bowl." I know he was being facetious, but at the same time it made me a little sad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
[quoteNew, young players? Who else is there? Gotta start them some place. May as well be in the system that's going to be run. Otherwise, when do you start running the new offense? Multi-packages are a part of it and we don't have veterans to run them.
Dub, my man, I'd only say that the week leading up to this last game, I was debating......who was it......I've forgotten now (sorry whoever you are duder ) but I had a discussion stating I really felt Shurmur needed to back the offense up, simplify it, and do the things that Colt is capable of doing right now. Shurmur turned around this past week and said........well..........*ahem*........that he felt he needed to scale the offense back, hehe.
You can't learn Algebra without first knowing simple math. You can't run until you learn to walk. Etc etc, hehe. We clearly (IMnotsohumbleO. ) haven't been able to absorb everything Pat has tried to install. Between the QB not knowing where to go with the ball to the unacceptable amount of too many men in motion penalties, it's pretty clear all the signs were there.
So when do we run the entire playbook? Whenever McCoy and the receivers are ready for it. They aren't right now. Gotta back it up and make it easier for the QB to execute. Sucks, but it's true.
Quote:
Smith is the only TE to have any prior experience in the WCO. So that makes some sense playing him over Moore especially considering he was in the beginning of evaluating the offensive players in the new system. Cribbs is a known play maker, especially in the open field. He's also a gutsy veteran. It's understandable to try an get him the ball in the new system.
I can see the logic of Smith if the dominant factor was experience in this offense. I've seen it further argued that he's in there because he's more of a blocker than Moore. I can see that as well. Still though, who are we kidding? Moore is a receiver, not a TE. I'm arguing for him in formations where we've taken Smith and stood him up as a receiver on the outside. I don't see the point in having Moore, who is a gifted receiver, giving up playing time to a guy who doesn't have the same abilities. Since I'm for dumbing down the offense first, that makes for less of an emphasis on the intricacies of the WCO, and thus brings less of a need for a guy who has more experience. McCoy is struggling very badly right now. Give him the best receiving options he can get out there. That's Moore, not Smith.
Besides, Moore came from Green Bay. They run which kind of offense?
Now, let's talk about Cribbs. I've never been convinced that he's a receiver. Watching the guy in slo-mo shows that he's just horrible in and out of his breaks. He telegraphs his routes. He does make some catches, but doesn't have really good hands. You ask him to run NFL-quality routes game-in and game-out and you have an inferior player. He does his best work on quick hitters and gadget plays. Sure, he does have the size to go get the jump ball, but over a 16-game season, his lack of NFL-quality receiving ability as a whole gets exposed. We've seen it over the last several seasons, where he's always hyped up as being this potential play-maker, yet when his body of work is examined, he proves to be a failed experiment. The guy just isn't a polished receiver, and if he hasn't gotten it now, he won't. At least Robo has been a receiver his entire life. Why he isn't seeing any balls in spite of being open I have no idea. All I do know is that we're losing what Cribbs does very well because we're praying like Hell he can suddenly improve upon being an NFL receiver, something he doesn't do very well.
Quote:
What's happening is one guy is not getting set before the other guy moves. It's a simple case of the players being so new to the system and not executing properly.
Noooooo...no, hehe.
I've seen two occasions where two guys thought they were supposed to go in motion and both did at the same time. Then I see McCoy not allowing the guys to reset before he calls for the snap. I'm not putting it on him, but that's something a veteran QB will do. The problem isn't so simple as one guy getting jumpy and going in motion too early. It's much bigger than that. These guys simply don't know the offense and are either too dumb to get it or the coaches aren't doing a good enough job of instilling it into their brains. The proof of what I'm saying? The article I just read that stated Shurmur is busting people's nutz because they aren't executing in practice. The article is around here somewhere.
So it comes back to simplifying the offense. If the kids aren't getting the tough stuff, you gotta back it off and do things they can understand and execute.
So here we are.
School....is out.
No man, seriously, watch the offense this week. It's going to be mucho play-action for McCoy and simpler throws. Pat knows they aren't getting it. He has to start over closer to Chapter 3 than Chapter 10.
***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: 50,509
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
OK .. I have a questions here.
Cribbs definitely plays better when the play is in front of him.
He is a strong player, and can block.
Why not make him a 3rd down RB type player?
He could run from the backfield occasionally, and catch passes out of the backfield more effectively then he can as a WR.
The team could even use him as a gimmick QB on occasion.
Why not use him on all special teams and as a 3rd down back?
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 |
Well Ytown, I remember part of the Cribbs debates a couple of years ago. I used to argue that he did good work in space, but didn't do good work when in heavy traffic, such as at the LOS. He runs very upright and doesn't protect himself very well. He didn't show that he'd be able to stick his head down and try and power for yards. Out in space he's tough to bring down, but without the space he wasn't very effective. Then there's the matter of his size. I honestly can't say whether or not he can block a blitzing linebacker, you know, stepping up in a hole and stopping a 250-pound guy who has a head start. If he can do that, then I wouldn't mind seeing what he could do. Still, he's small for such a thing.
I've always said I think he has a role on offense. Pure receiver? No way, not even close. Pure running back? Same thing, he isn't cut out for it. Gadget guy who you can line up at various places and run screens and short routes to? Yeah, I think that's where he belongs. That emphasizes the things he does well while leaving him enough energy to do the things that he's great at: Special teams.
***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: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
No doubt he needs a little space to get it going.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Which is why he's much better on KO returns than he is on punt returns.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
and he is not going to be great at either one unless we can somehow learn to block and create a seem for him (which we have not been doing much of in the last 22 games 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
I'd like to reply to some of the Mangini vs Schurmur posts, just by stating I'm glad Eric has a job in broadcasting. I wasn't the biggest fan of Mangini as head coach of the Browns, and want to forget it.
I usually compare the new Browns coach to the one immediatly before, and if the new one is a step down, then forget.
I like to forget the year or so of Bud Carson, and not compare Bellichik straight up with Bud Carson, but Belichik to Schottenheimer.
Same way, ... since Chris Palmer was 50/50, it was to compare Butch Davis not to Chris Palmer, but Butch Davis vs Bellichik.
Then Crennel, not to Terry Robiskie, Interim HC, but to compare Crennel to Butch Davis,
are they a clear step forward or back?
So you might be comparing Schurmur to Mangini, but I'm going to look at it like
Schurmur vs Crennel , and Mangini vs Crennel,
I think Mangini was a step back from Crennel and Schurmur is a step even with Crennel but it's still early.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
I'd like to reply to some of the Mangini vs Schurmur posts, just by stating I'm glad Eric has a job in broadcasting. I wasn't the biggest fan of Mangini as head coach of the Browns, and want to forget it.
I usually compare the new Browns coach to the one immediatly before, and if the new one is a step down, then forget.
I like to forget the year or so of Bud Carson, and not compare Bellichik straight up with Bud Carson, but Belichik to Schottenheimer.
Same way, ... since Chris Palmer was 50/50, it was to compare Butch Davis not to Chris Palmer, but Butch Davis vs Bellichik.
Then Crennel, not to Terry Robiskie, Interim HC, but to compare Crennel to Butch Davis,
are they a clear step forward or back?
So you might be comparing Schurmur to Mangini, but I'm going to look at it like
Schurmur vs Crennel , and Mangini vs Crennel,
I think Mangini was a step back from Crennel and Schurmur is a step even with Crennel but it's still early.
Round about thinking but I understand what you are saying. However as much as Shurmur is pissing me off I think the book is still out on him and saying hes even with Crennel is pretty much spot on.
Hes a players coach for the most part and being a long time cord then finally getting his first shot at HC.
Both never got those shots except here for a reason so lets hope Crennel part 2 works out better then Crennel part 1.
As far as comparing Mangini I would have used Davis for him, given a 3rd year who knows esp given the drafting of Heckert.
Hes gone Ive moved on it's time for Shurmur to step up the plate and to quote larry " Get er don" 
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Crennel was easily the worst or tied with Palmer for the worst (full time) HC we've had since the return...
Palmer: Never had a chance... I don't hold that against him. He wanted LT out of the 2001 draft. So he gets points in my book.
Davis: Butch the GM ruined Butch the HC's chance
Crennel: His success in NE meant he got a chance at being a HC. But that doesn't mean he should of.
Mangini: Had moments where it looked like we turned the corner, but I think the hiring of Holmgren to me signed his pink slip from the start.
Shurmur: TBD
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
j/c 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,482
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,482 |
Oh come on Ammo, let's be realistic.
Shurmur has AT LEAST 6 plays.
1) Hand off up the middle
2) 5 yard crossing route
3) QB roll right and throw it as far as you can't...coverage be damned
4) Screen pass to the OLine
5) 3 yard button hook
6) Bubble screen to WR
It gets tricky though when he's trying to call plays above #5 with only the fingers on one hand. Being a HC and OC is a tough job yo!
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/GraffZ06/browns_factory_sig.jpg) Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Correction
#1: Punt
No reason to make them go that far down the playbook to find the one we use the most...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950 |
j/c Shurmar is 3-4 after 7 games, no off season learning program, couldnt talk to players till what Mid July, has all injured RB and a Rookie QB oh ya and is putting in a new system.... it took Crennel 3 years to put in his system and than it didnt work. Mangini won his 3 rd game of the year the last game of the season or close to it, did Palmer win 3 games With what Shurmar had to start with and lack of off season programs I think were doing ok, but results are expected next season 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827 |
No offense but I am getting sick and tired of people calling Colt a rookie Qb. That is just not true. And yes he had only played in a few games prior to this season but even if he hadn't played at all, just having spent a year in the NFL seeing how things are done, meeting his teammates, learning the facilities and experiencing a full year of NFL practices is huge. But he got game experience too. There is no comparison between where Colt is and a rookie Qb. Cam Newton is a rookie Qb, Dalton and Ponder are rookie Qbs. Colt is not.
Rant over, resume the conversation.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
And with the current state and talent of our team one could say Colt is still experiencing college football. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Shurmar is 3-4 after 7 games,
Dick Jauron is 3-4..... Forgetting the "they did enough to win" argument, what has our offense really contributed to our wins? They did ok in the Colts game, that's about it.
I'm not calling for Shurmur's head now or at the end of the season... Living in Carolina I talk to a lot of Panther fans, have a couple in this office and I've told them several times that I'm far more impressed with their 2 wins than I am with our 3... they have played better competition, they have been in a position to win almost every game, they play exciting football worth watching, they just can't close the deal..
If you could put the Panthers offense with our defense you would have a pretty good team.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827 |
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Is Shurmur hurting this team?
|
|
