|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I think it comes down to who the guy is. Having a body on the sidelines just to be there might not be a good thing. Then again ... I feel comfortable with having Jauron basically run the defense and let Shurmur know what's going on with the D but have his focus on the offense.
Having a coordinator might help .. but only if that coordinator is on the same page. And what top knotch coordinator is going to take a position where he is coordinator by name only because Shurmur will call all of the plays? It would only be an older guy who has proven himself ... but if he isn't calling his own plays then why be the coordinator?
Or it would be a younger guy who is unproven and probably just wants to move up. Is that type of guy really going to improve the team?
So my answer is there is no "yes" or "no." The right guy could help. The wrong guy could hurt. A lot of guys might not make any difference to what we see now. I don't know if it would help to bring in an offensive coordinator who won't call his own plays.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
I think it comes down to who the guy is. Having a body on the sidelines just to be there might not be a good thing. Then again ... I feel comfortable with having Jauron basically run the defense and let Shurmur know what's going on with the D but have his focus on the offense.
Having a coordinator might help .. but only if that coordinator is on the same page. And what top knotch coordinator is going to take a position where he is coordinator by name only because Shurmur will call all of the plays? It would only be an older guy who has proven himself ... but if he isn't calling his own plays then why be the coordinator?
Or it would be a younger guy who is unproven and probably just wants to move up. Is that type of guy really going to improve the team?
So my answer is there is no "yes" or "no." The right guy could help. The wrong guy could hurt. A lot of guys might not make any difference to what we see now. I don't know if it would help to bring in an offensive coordinator who won't call his own plays.
Your first paragraph explains much more of the problem then I could hash out, Yeah the HC isnt worried about whats going on, on the field, and lets the Bungles (of all teams ARGGG) pull a fast snap on us.
Why is that? Because the HC is to busy with his head buried in the Offensive play book and not nearly enough time having his head into the game at hand.
See the difference?
If he had a OC on the sidelines working on plays and what has worked, opened up during the game, he then would be able to communitate with Shurmur what plays have a chance to work and what the defense is throwing at them scheme wise.
Yeah Shurmur has final say over the call but he can also spend more time on the sidelines being an actual Head Coach and managing a game while it is still going on instead of being an apologist for why things didnt go right after the game.
I have no problems with him having say over what plays get called, thats his job. What I think is hurting him is wanting to call all the plays on offense to the determent of this team because that is taking him away from his main duties which are
A) Manage the team at game time
B) Oversee all plays
C) Make play calls
And many probably will add in much more then that before they get to C.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,532
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,532 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think it comes down to who the guy is. Having a body on the sidelines just to be there might not be a good thing. Then again ... I feel comfortable with having Jauron basically run the defense and let Shurmur know what's going on with the D but have his focus on the offense.
Having a coordinator might help .. but only if that coordinator is on the same page. And what top knotch coordinator is going to take a position where he is coordinator by name only because Shurmur will call all of the plays? It would only be an older guy who has proven himself ... but if he isn't calling his own plays then why be the coordinator?
Or it would be a younger guy who is unproven and probably just wants to move up. Is that type of guy really going to improve the team?
So my answer is there is no "yes" or "no." The right guy could help. The wrong guy could hurt. A lot of guys might not make any difference to what we see now. I don't know if it would help to bring in an offensive coordinator who won't call his own plays.
Your first paragraph explains much more of the problem then I could hash out, Yeah the HC isnt worried about whats going on, on the field, and lets the Bungles (of all teams ARGGG) pull a fast snap on us.
Why is that? Because the HC is to busy with his head buried in the Offensive play book and not nearly enough time having his head into the game at hand.
See the difference?
If he had a OC on the sidelines working on plays and what has worked, opened up during the game, he then would be able to communitate with Shurmur what plays have a chance to work and what the defense is throwing at them scheme wise.
Yeah Shurmur has final say over the call but he can also spend more time on the sidelines being an actual Head Coach and managing a game while it is still going on instead of being an apologist for why things didnt go right after the game.
I have no problems with him having say over what plays get called, thats his job. What I think is hurting him is wanting to call all the plays on offense to the determent of this team because that is taking him away from his main duties which are
A) Manage the team at game time
B) Oversee all plays
C) Make play calls
And many probably will add in much more then that before they get to C.
That is sorta silly to just blame Shurmer for that play....players on the field could have called time out, you know the guy with the "C" on his shirt, Jauron could have called a time out as well....basically any of the assistant coaches could have.....it was a trick play that worked. Pointing the finger of blame on Shurmer isnt really fair, as there where several others who didnt see it, or wasnt paying attention either!
#brownsgoodkarma
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
That is sorta silly to just blame Shurmer for that play....players on the field could have called time out, you know the guy with the "C" on his shirt, Jauron could have called a time out as well....basically any of the assistant coaches could have.....it was a trick play that worked. Pointing the finger of blame on Shurmer isnt really fair, as there where several others who didnt see it, or wasnt paying attention either!
Shurmur accepted responsibility for it, so I don't think its silly at all. Scott Fujita also stated after that game that if he'd seen it coming he might've called timeout himself, even though Shurmur does not allow players to call timeouts without his permission.
Quote:
"I should have called it," [Fujita] said. "Generally, we are supposed to get permission from the sideline before we can call a timeout on defense. But me being the crusty old ... I am, I should have noticed it and I should have called it."
link
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
Pat Shurmur has about one of the most important jobs in the world, (ok not, but for sake of argument),
has about the most important jobs to the Browns world, and I think he deserves FULL SUPPORT at this point in time. For all of the Sky is falling thinking, I can also expect that this Season is way up in the air, with alot of football still to be played and it's still possible to have a good one.
Especially if this coach can find new and inventive ways to make a splash in the division games. I expected this team, still largely healthy, to beat, Oakland, Seattle, and San Fran, and I still expect them to beat Seattle and San Fran.
So if the answer to the question of Is Schurmurs dual role hurting this team, is yes, then the second question is How? and When? should they address it?
In spite of all of the negative, I still think this team has the opportunity for improvement, I just think it hasn't been demonstrated yet,
The good news is that a 2-3 record isn't major cause to" throw in the towell" on the 2011 season yet,
that won't happen until, well if they can avoid getting their 6th loss before they get to the 11th game then they will at least have a punchers chance, a mathmatical chance, to win in the hardest part of the schedule.
It's fair to give this coach at least one full round though the division to witness that he's not going to unleash some new idea that works.
I still expect this team to win 10 games this season, I just thought with the opponents flailing in the water, they'd be closer than they are by now.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I still expect this team to win 10 games this season,
And I thought I was optimistic at 7 games... 
I think you are right in the respect that he deserves more time but people are frustrated and looking for answers and "we need more time" isn't something that a lot of people want to hear. Most people want to be able to focus their frustrations.. it's Shurmurs fault, it's Colt's fault, those are the two easiest scapegoats...
The growth of our team isn't going to be linear, we aren't going to be better each week than we were the week before, it's going to be a step forward and then a step back.. hopefully we get to where it's two steps forward and one back... right now I see a defense that is playing pretty darn well and an offense that clicks once in a rare while but really needs to find an identity and some consistency... so with Shurmur running the offense and Colt as the QB, most people place 99% of the blame on one of (or both) those two...
I can't say it will be this week, but at some point in the next few our offense is going to find something that works and we are going to look pretty decent.. might only be for one game... the next week we might take a step back, I don't know... but eventually I have to trust that they will get it figured out and start to be more consistent..
I don't like it. A lot of people think that those of us who have patience are enjoying watching this.. trust me, I'm not.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
A good post, DC, and agreed. Quote:
"The growth of our team isn't going to be linear"
This is what's so hard for many folks to accept, even though it's true. When I talk to my students, I warn them that their progress isn't graphed like a slope.... it's more like a series of stair-steps: they'll seem to plateau for a bit while the new info is "sinking in", seemingly making no progress at all.... then all of a sudden- boom! "instant" success.
I think that's what's happening with Colt AND the offense in general. With any luck, we might see a jump in the next game or two. I say this because in studying each of our 'skill' players, we see flashes from all of them. What we haven't seen is consistency... and that's what it will take for us to compete week-in/week-out at a higher level.
It's just a guess on my part, but at least there's one other Browns fan who seems to see it the same way....
Here's to us crazies, bro!
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Great Post DC.. 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Now here you go, DC, making a post with common sense and solid reasoning. I didn't realize we were still allowed to do that on here!
Seriously, I agree with your post. The hard part for many is when they see those flashes of good things they don't understand why it doesn't happen all the time. It's all about the learning process. Contrary to what some will say, this is still an entirely new system.
Clem's analogy about his students is spot on as well, and I think does a nice job of illustrating what (hopefully) is happening/will happen with this team.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Nice to see someone else thinking along the same lines as me.
Yes, I get frustrated. But I also temper that with the expectations I had for the year.
For some, I feel they are part of the "microwave society"......I want it, and I want it now.
Or maybe it's the "sitcom society".......in 30 minutes, including 10 minutes of commercials - a problem arises, and it is fixed. Boom. Over. Done.
What this team needs more than anything is continuity. Yes, we live in a "what have you done for me lately" world. That's part of the problem. Let's get some continuity. Let's fill whole as we can - let's not plug one hole while creating 3 others. Let's give it some time.
It sucks - especially for long time fans..........but I have no doubt at some point in the next few years we'll see the benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Clem's analogy about his students is spot on as well, and I think does a nice job of illustrating what (hopefully) is happening/will happen with this team.
When HASN'T Clem been spot on? Even if I disagree with him in some situations, his posts make me think. And I don't say something like that about very many people in life in general, let alone about someone on a message board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
I feel your pain Arch.. I get frustrated as well. I didn't have high expectations so my hopes aren't exactly being dashed, but it's still frustrating that we aren't playing well.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I feel your pain Arch.. I get frustrated as well. I didn't have high expectations so my hopes aren't exactly being dashed, but it's still frustrating that we aren't playing well.
It's absolutely frustrating. Without a doubt. Has been for the last, what, 11 years? But every Sunday (a monday here or there), I watch. What frustrates me even more is the people that are ready to pack it in - get rid of this guy, get rid of the coach, heck, some idiots are already saying to get rid of the front office..........when will they learn that continuity plays SOME part in this whole thing called a game of football?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
General question for anyone who cares to think a little bit:
Who are considered to be the great offensive minds in the league? I figure for the most part, these will be current or former head coaches or offensive coordinators, but feel free to use your imagination.
Off the top of my head, of the active coaches, here are a few, in no particular order.
Bill Belichick, Sean Payton, Mike McCarthy, Andy Reid, Tom Moore (through 2010), Norv Turner (maybe), maybe Jim Harbaugh in the future...
My original approach was to ask what they all had in common, which I don't think is particularly fair because obviously a good coach is at least partially responsible for the development of the quarterback and the play of the offense.
Instead, I ask if any of the above coaches would be viewed as great offensive minds if they worked with a quarterback that can't make basic NFL throws. I don't think any of them would be viewed positively.
And yes Belichick has traditionally been viewed as a defensive guy but I consider him an offensive guru now as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
General question for anyone who cares to think a little bit:
i suppose 
Quote:
Who are considered to be the great offensive minds in the league?
in no particular order:
Peyton Manning (ability to read and change plays at the LOS)
Bill Belicheck (NE offenses constantly changing over the years - he gets some credit)
Mike Holmgren (he's still in football and his resume is ridiculous)
Mike Shanahan (his system has been impeccable even if he has been stuck with mediocre QB play lately. Kubiak in Houston is part of his tree. He really brought modern zone-blocking into the forefront of the NFL which is now popular all over the place)
Sean Payton (what he does getting players to play to their strengths and putting them into a position to succeed is Bill Walshesque)
Andy Reid (only Indy has been more consistently good on offense and he did it with alot more change at QB due to injuries and then the past few years of QB-turmoil)
Mike McCarthy (GB has a ton of weapons and a great QB, but the HC has got to get some credit for the consistent success too)
Bruce Arians - it pains me to put him in this list. absolutely pains me. but, he switches between a power-attack to a spread attack depending on opponent (more than anyone in the same season at least) and has put Pitt's offense in positions to succeed time and time again.
Quote:
Instead, I ask if any of the above coaches would be viewed as great offensive minds if they worked with a quarterback that can't make basic NFL throws. I don't think any of them would be viewed positively.
And yes Belichick has traditionally been viewed as a defensive guy but I consider him an offensive guru now as well.
I agree on Belichick as you can see above.
we know what happens with Bruce when he has substandard QB play. we also know with Shanahan due to his time with Washington.
i would also like to say that we know with Reid, except that he is a huge exception where it looks like any QB he plugs in has success (outside of VY last weekend). Feeley, Vick, Kolb, etc. The littany of backup QBs that step in and find immediate success with the Eagles over the Reid's time is unheard of anywhere else (and note that all have failed elsewhere so far).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Good point on Manning. I guess we could say that he at least made Moore look good for a very long time.
Ditto on Holmgren. His superbowl winning team in Green Bay had both the #1 offense and #1 defense. Pretty amazing.
Shanahan... can't believe I didn't even mention him. But yeah his zone blocking scheme in his earlier days in Denver was way ahead of his time. But even his looks silly with poor QB play like with McNabb last year.
Bruce Arians was ripped here mercilessly but actually looks like a decent coach in pittsburgh, despite an offensive line in shambles.
And finally Reid.. you're right, he is about the only guy who seems to be able to find QBs left and right and get most or all of them to play well. It's pretty remarkable really.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Future uncertain for Browns offense, including Colt McCoy
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 20, 2011, 3:02 PM EDT
Pat Shurmur, Colt McCoy AP
Mike Holmgren and Pat Shurmur are in Cleveland to fix the offense above all else.
That’s why it’s been a surprise to see quarterback Colt McCoy and the Browns running game take a step back after Eric Mangini’s firing. Only Kerry Collins has a lower yards-per-attempt average than McCoy this season.
Browns president Mike Holmgren made it clear Thursday McCoy is still being evaluated to see whether he’s really a franchise quarterback.
“Let’s let him play and see how performs and we’ll evaluate it at end of year,” Holmgren said via Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.
Holmgren said he’s not opposed to adding a new quarterback every year until one sticks: “You have to find that person.”
Pete Prisco of CBSSports watched tape on McCoy this week and came away unimpressed with his arm strength and inability to handle pressure. Quarterback may not be the only change for the Browns offense if they don’t get things turned around.
Holmgren said that Shurmur will likely hire an offensive coordinator next season. That’s a tacit admission that the first-time head coach could use a little more support.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...ing-colt-mccoy/
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
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.
***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: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
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.
My hope is Andy Reid gets fired and we snag him as our OC.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
My hope is Andy Reid gets fired and we snag him as our OC.
no way Andy Reid comes here to be OC..if Reid comes here, its to be Head Coach and move Shurmur to OC....Reid has been a successful Head coach in Philly for what...over a decade? he has a resume of of a real proven sucessfull head coach...no way he comes here as OC
I don't think Shurmur is a good head coach...he was Reid's Quarterbacks coach for 10 years.....Andy Reid passed Shurmur over on promoting him to OC about 3-4 times during his time there...Reid went after guys like Morningwhig, Childress, etc...some of these guys outside of his staff...why didn't Reid ever promote Shurmur? its a legitimate question to be asked...
After 5 or 6 years..you would think Shurmur would know Reid's system better then just about anyone...yet Reid kept passing him over for promotion...there a reason for that...i don't care what anyone says...theres a reason for that....he couldn't get promoted beyond QB Coach even when the position opened up multiple times during his 10 year stay in Philly?
He goes on to the Rams...where he wasn't that good at all...and Rams fans wanted him gone and we got him for Head Coach.....I think the guy crashes and burns in season 2 to midway through 3....
You know Seaon Payton went from being a QB Coach in Philly, to QB Coach in NY, promoted to OC for the Giants, to being Qb Coach and Assistant Head Coach under Parcells in Dallas for 2 years, to Head coach in Saints land...the dude paid his dues and actually moved up the ladder to his position.
Shurmur got passed over and stuck at QB Coach in Philly for a decade, spent 2009-2010 as a OC in Rams Land to Head coach here....
Even Mangini worked his way up the ladder...starting out as an Assistant for the Ravens, Assistant for the Jets, Defensive Backs coach for New England, Promoted to Defensive Coordinator in New England, to Head coach in New York (With two winning seasons in 3 years), to Head Coach here...
Pat Shurmur's resume left a lot to be desired, and i think it was an error in judgement to hire him....Holmgren only gave him a shot because he was freinds with Shurmurs dad or uncle whoever he was in Green Bay....
Perry Fewell was a better candidate, had better credentials, and he still put up a 3-4 record as an interim head coach in a train wreck in Buffalo...not to mention he fielded a pretty good defense that ranked 2nd in the AFC in negative yardage plays, recorded 7 games that year he held opposing O under 100 yards rushing, and finished 4th in red zone defense, only gave up 14 TD passes all year...
Perry Fewell wasa better candidate then this Shurmur guy.....
We should have strongly considered Rob Ryan for the Head Coaching job...I have no doubt Ryan would have been open to letting Holmgren pick him an OC of Holmgren's liking, ryan is a very good D coach...we wouldn't have had to scrap our entire D scheme, we ranked 10th in scoring D and we could have improved on that.
What i have seen of shurmur so far...he is a terrible playcaller, and doesn't manage games well...not to mention he already has a game on the books of wasting timeouts(maybe he thinks they carry over) and the whole having his head buried in a book while Cini quicksnaps us...thats inexcusable in professional football........
he was passed over for a protion in Philly for a decade while a position to move up opened many times....there is a reason Reid never promoted him.....
He only got this job because holmgren was friends with dad/uncle or whatever...thats the only reason why...Perry Fewell had better credentials and IMO is and will be a good head coach in this league when he gets a chance.....even giving Rob Ryan a shot would have been a better alternative....
We shall soon see....but so far...im not liking what i see from our head coach....his play calling is atrocious.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Do you get texts alerts when any chance of dissing Shurmur/Praising Mangini come up?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
I think the guy crashes and burns in season 2 to midway through 3....
Wow...there's a bold prediction about a Browns coach given our past history. Nothing gets by you does it..... 
Again I say, Mangini is not coming back, guys.....get over it. 
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Do you get texts alerts when any chance of dissing Shurmur/Praising Mangini come up?
no LOL i just call em how i see em....actually the more i look at the bigger picture, the more the likelyhood Holmgren and Heckert fail here in cleveland. Why? Because they have made 3 HUGE crucial mistakes....mistakes they couldn't afford to make so soon in their tenure that will come back to bite them sometime in year 3.
1. Holmgren's First Mistake - Not firing Eric Mangini the day he took the Browns President Job. I liked Eric Mangini the Coach, and I wanted to keep him, but it was clear from day one the two couldn't coexist. Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind Holmgren wanted to bring in "his guy" much like Parcells did when he took over in Miami. Holmgren wanted to look like the "nice guy" by saying he was giving the coach a chance, when in reality nothing short of a 8 - 9 win season was going to save Mangini's job anyways. This even more true considering the talent that Holmgren brought in(Jake, more on that in a minute) So essentiallly Holmgren made Mangini a "Lame duck coach" in essence and did not give Mangini the tools or players he needed to be successful or at least try to give him the chance to be successful.
2. Holmgren's Second Mistake - Giving all those millions of dollars for Jake Dellhomme....this was a mistake of vast proprtions...he essentailly took Lerners moeny and just flushed it right down the toilet....everyone knew Jake was done, he had ZERO offers for a starting job anywhere because the guy was finished...the media laughed at us that we even signed him let alone gave him all those millions of dollars....that by the way counted against our cap...we would have been better off marching Wallace on the field and using the millions we gave Jake to address other areas of the team so Mangini would have had a fair chance.
3. Holmgren's Third Mistake - Firing the head coach when there was still a real chance of an NFL lockout/Labor dispute and trying to install a new system under these conditions. This is just a flat out administrative blunder of vast proportions...you don't fire someone like that when there is a good chance there is going to be a lockout(until the labor contract was signed you must plan on a lockout/strike occuring, this is just sound management planning) This point 3 goes back to point one...if he wanted to hire his guy, he should have done it day one...EVERY president in the league knew in 2010 was the last year of the labor agreement....if he wanted "his guy" he should have hired him day one.
These 3 huge mistakes were made early...and they set us back big time....on a team as young as ours, having some sort of stability in the system is the single most important thing to your team...you team needs to know the base they are standing on. Had Holmgren hired "his guy" day one instead of jerking around with the idea of keeping Mangini then a lot of this whole mess would have been avoided because last year would have been the evaluation year and they would have had full offseason to begin learning WCO/NCO....so in essence Holmgren has set us back another year....
Again... Holmgren is a good football man, but there is a reason most other NFL teams have a suit that runs the show....the football man runs the draft(The GM) But the suit runs the team...a good suit is only as good as the advice he gets from his football man, but Holmgren has no background or expereince in organizational management....planning ahead on business operations....if you want to be successful, you don't fire your lead manager on the eve of an inpending labor lockout...thats just oxymoronic...
Holmgren should have solidfied his mangement structure(bring in his appointed head coach) day one when he got here....
He may not get the time he needs now....being set back one year...one year can be the difference between staying on and getting canned....
make no mistake if this team only wins 4 games or less...Holmgren is going to be feeling serious hat from Lerner(Lerner has every right too) Holmgren is not Lerner's only advisor...and those suits that Lerner talks to probably see the same things i just outlined...outright incompetence in how you set up your mangement structure(in this case head coaches)
Sound suits don't fire their managers on the eve of a lockout...you just don't do that...Holmgren should have hired "his WCO/NCO guy" on day one...if he wanted this team in his image it should have been done day one...and i think these 3 mistakes will be the beginning of his undoing....
If this team sucks in year two of Shurmur's tenure...Lerner will most likely move to pull the plug....he has been more then fair with Holmgren, Heckert, and the lot...he allowed them to waste money on Delhomme, draft and sign whoever they want, hire and fire whoever they want, and has paid them a good salary..if Lerner cans them...its not Lerner's fault...its their fault...they made this bed themselves, and now they have to lie in it.
i personally hope Shurmur pulls a miracle and wins 9-10 games in year too because to be frank with you....im tired of starting over, brining in new systems, dumping players, etc...im sick of it...
however Holmgren did Shurmur no favors in how he handled things, and the situation he put him in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
1. So you think it makes sense to fire a coach after 1 season (Mangini) without giving him time to succeed ... Are you going to be for firing Shurmur after his first season?
2. It's not your money and there was no cap. It doesn't affect you if they paid him Haynesworth money. BUT ... we could have done what? Gone after McNabb? You see how well he is doing ... and it would have cost us a 2nd rounder (if not more). Would you trade Greg Little or Jabaal Sheard for Donovan McNabb?
3. So ... you were all for getting rid of Mangini ... but only if it was convenient?
That would have been horrible. We probably could have seen a little bit of improvement but had a fundamentally disfunctional franchise with a President and a GM who run a WCO and a 4-3 ... and coach who runs a ball control offense with a 3-4?
We were going to experience growing pains regardless of when it happened.
And we will have to agree to disagree ... because if Lerner puts ANY heat on Holmgren and Shurmur with everything considered then we really will be a city that doesn't deserve a franchise.
When will the fans wake up and realize these things take time. Too many people jump on the bandwagon for ANYONE and talk themselves up to major standards that we cannot possibly attain ... and then instead of coming back down to earth ... people crash to levels of despair.
We knew this was a 7-9 team ... maybe 8-8 best case. we have a very good chance of being 3-3 after this weekend and that's right about on pace for what we expected WITHOUT even talking about the blunder at the end of Cincy.
If I found a genie my first wish would be for all Browns fans to just stop overreacting.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
1. So you think it makes sense to fire a coach after 1 season (Mangini) without giving him time to succeed ...
Life isn't always fair...I liked Mangini...but him and Holmgren had ZERO in common with how they envision a foortball team...Mangini came from the Bellichik/Parcells tree that is the Anti-Holmgren/Walsh tree in every way, their philosophy was complete polar opposites...2010 WAS dysfunctional as dysfuctional can be.
Did you see Parcells keep Cameron after he came aboard? Cam Cameron had nothing in common with the Parcells Philosphy...so why delay the inevitable? can him after one year...sometimes it has to be done...Holmgren should have canned Mangini "out of respect" that they didn't share the same visions and Holmgren wanted his own guy...at least Holmgren would have been being honest with Eric AS A MAN.
Quote:
Are you going to be for firing Shurmur after his first season?
no
Quote:
3. So ... you were all for getting rid of Mangini ... but only if it was convenient?
I never said it was convient, i never said i would have liked it, I said it was the prudent and smart thing to do...sometimes in life you have to do a lot of things you don't like, Holmgren should have asserted his control on this team day one...just like Parcells did in Miami and thats by bring in "his choice" as Head Coach....starting off his tenue with a guy he wanted in the first place..who ran his philosphy of football.
Quote:
That would have been horrible. We probably could have seen a little bit of improvement but had a fundamentally disfunctional franchise with a President and a GM who run a WCO and a 4-3 ... and coach who runs a ball control offense with a 3-4?
thats what we had in 2010...we had a coach who was a run the ball, Bellichik/Parcells 3-4 guy with a GM and President that were of the Walsh WCO 4-3 tree...what more dysfunctional could you get? The Mangini + Holmgren years was infact the dysfunctionality your talking about....
Quote:
And we will have to agree to disagree ... because if Lerner puts ANY heat on Holmgren and Shurmur with everything considered then we really will be a city that doesn't deserve a franchise.
When will the fans wake up and realize these things take time. Too many people jump on the bandwagon for ANYONE and talk themselves up to major standards that we cannot possibly attain ... and then instead of coming back down to earth ... people crash to levels of despair.
if Lerner puts heat on Holmgren, he has every right too....it was Holmgren's bright idea to fire a coach and hire a new one on the eve of a NFL work stoopage/lockout...he knew it would be next to immpossible to implement a system under those conditions...had he hired "his guy" day one then he actually would have had 2010 to evaluate and begin to implement in the correct manner...instead of thos hodge poge we have now....and this team would have been ready to compete a year sooner. it was Holmgren's idea to blow money on Jake...i don't care if its an uncapped year or not...you can't just make bad investments year in and year out..you cause ticket prices and such to rise or else you lose money...its just not smart.
Quote:
We knew this was a 7-9 team ... maybe 8-8 best case. we have a very good chance of being 3-3 after this weekend and that's right about on pace for what we expected WITHOUT even talking about the blunder at the end of Cincy.
7-9? 8-8? i highley doubt that...if this team wins 5 games i will consider that a bonus....we are most likely looking at 5-11, 4-12...even 3-13 is not out of the realm of possibility...we couldn't even beat the Bengals without their starting QB...we couldn't even beat a Campbelless Raiders team.....
im not over-reacting, Im just stating how i see it...
if thois team goes the less then 6 wins route(which is highly probable) Lerner has every right and should call Holmgren in office.
we will just have to wait and see, I would love to win 7 games...but as it looks..we will be lucky to win 5...if we win 5 i'll consider that a bonus...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
When will the fans wake up and realize these things take time.
They do take time, and next season will be season #3 of the Mike Holmgren era. We'd better be no less than .500 next year, because when you're 60% of the way into a 5-year-plan in the NFL, it behooves you to put a product on the field that can muster up a winning record. And if you think this is some knee-jerk reaction on my part, you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Ok ... I get the reasoning on the first part and on that was more looking for clarification. I think it's a hard decision either way. Personally I still don't know how I would have handled it ... but I don't think it was an easy decision either way. I do think he was at least given an honest assessment (though he might not have been) ... and while it wasn't an easy shot ... if he would have won more than 5 games (maybe a .500 season to be fair) he likely could have kept his job.
No proof either way on that though ... obviously.
As for the #3. ... I am against it. I think there is always a struggle in football of not making decisions too hastily ... but then once you have seen enough evidence ... don't delay.
Maybe 1 season wasn't enough for Mangini ... and really maybe 2 wasn't enough for a fair shot. BUT ... if they KNEW he wasn't the guy they can't just keep him around. It makes sense to just get on with it and start the next style. OTHERWISE it would have possibly been Holmgren's 3rd (or 4th or 5th) season as the president without having his own coach in place. That would not have been a functional organization ... that's all I'm saying there. So if you think you can't continue on with it then just cut the guy loose and move on - lockout or no.
No-one knew for sure the Lockout WOULD take place (even though a lot thought it would) and even then no-one knew how long it would be. You can't pin that on Holmgren. Or at least ... you wouldn't want him coming back after THIS year and saying "well I'm only getting my own coach in now, I couldn't fire Mangini last year because of the lockout so now I want to get my own guy in and we wasted the last 2 years ...).
Besides ... we had to make a decision with personnel as well. The first draft we took secondary players who fit in either system. We needed to draft D-line who were EITHER 3-4 OR 4-3... we couldn't have spent high picks in this past draft for the 3-4 only to fire mangini this upcoming offseason and have those picks be worthless. And if we DIDN'T go D-Line then we could have gone WR or O-Line ... but again we might be after different types of players. By not having a clear direction we would be leaving talent on the table as far as the draft was concerned.
Other than that? I see what you're saying and disagree with the execution of it but not the logic behind it.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Yes. And we are 5 games into a season that has already seen Steinbach and Hodges lost ... Haden Hillis MoMass Moore Watson Fujita and a few others lose time for injuries have close to 11 players starting who are either rookies or 2nd year players - none of which had a true offseason - while still making the change of 3-4/Ball Control to 4-3/WCO ... with a rookie head coach.
Not *Making* excuses because at the end of the day Herm Edwards says it best, you play to win the game. BUT ... denying that we are at a disadvantage entirely is simply reckless and arrogant (not saying you are by the way).
The reality is that one of our biggest 2 question marks - all else equal - are the head coach and the QB because those are almost always the most important on a team.
Shurmur will be looking to head into this week ... and with a little luck he comes out as a .500 coach. When was the last time a Browns coach had a .500 record heading into November (or at least the last day or 2 of October)?
And for all real purposes ... McCoy is heading into his 14th Game in the NFL as a starter. He's already had 2 offenses to learn, multiple linemen to play behind, different personnel around him, and one offseason where he was allegedly treated like dirt.
BUT ... even though he hasn't done anything to Woo us all over yet (aside from leadeship and heart), he HAS done a few things.
What I am most interested in is just giving him the season to prove himself. The last time a Browns QB started all 16 games was 2001 (Couch). DA had 15 in 2007. Since then DA had 9 starts in 2008, Quinn had 9 in 2009, and Colt had 8 last season. I am more sick of the QB carousel then almost anything. And I am just looking for a realistic shot for Colt to take the reigns. If he can't then we owe him nothing ... but to think he can come out and win 10 games on his own this season is just setting us all up for burst dreams by week 2 again.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
You are making excuses, actually, and everything you brought up aside from injuries goes out the window as a defense, because they were all self-inflicted. Nobody forced Mike Holmgren to fire Eric Mangini, necessitating hiring a new head coach on the eve of the lockout. He did that on his own. He could've fired Mangini a year earlier or retained him going into the lockout, which didn't exactly sneak up on anybody. Either would've been an acceptable course of action. He chose to do neither.
Nobody forced Mike Holmgren to hire a head coach with no previous experience, either. Again, that was his decision and his alone. Nobody forced him to grant that rookie head coach the power to be his own offensive coordinator and playcaller. Again, Holmgren's call. Likewise the decision to hire a defensive coordinator with a philosophy opposite that of the previous coordinator and with personnel geared towards running that system.
The tough spot we're in is due in no small part to the decisions made over the past 18 months by our team president. I doubt he's using it as an excuse, so neither should anybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
We had injuries galore last year too. By week 6, IIRC, we had lost Delhomme and Wallace .... Hardesty, Zastudil, Maiava, DQ, Robaire Smith, and Shaun Rogers played about 3 snaps/game .... if we were lucky. Injuries are, unfortunately, part of the game.
I am tired of excuses, and tired of losing. I hope that they get this mess turned around quickly, so we can watch our Browns fighting it out for the division crown, and the Super Bowl.
I hope that Shurmur turns the OC job over to someone who is an excellent, and experienced OC. IMHO, he needs to be in control of the whole team, seeing what happens during time outs, while his team is on defense, and so on, instead of working his way down the play sheet.
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: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
When was the last time a Browns coach had a .500 record heading into November (or at least the last day or 2 of October)?
2007
Next closest was 2008, when we went into November at 3-4.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Now Otto, you know if they whine and cry enough Mangini will leap from behind his ESPN desk job, drive up to Cleveland, plant a big old kiss on Randy Lerner, get his job back, fire Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmur and turn those Browns frowns upside down.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
You got me there. I thought we were at 3-4 in 2007 after the St. Louis game but it was after our bye and we got the win to put us up 4-3. That season we were a DA collapse (or two) from playoffs. In 2008 the closest we came was winning our 7th game which let us take 3 out of 4 ... unfortunately - we only took 1 out of the remaining 12. 1-5 in the first six games last year, and then 1-5 the first six games the year before. Going 3-3 isn't amazing but it should be seen as "some" improvement. We have a chance to do that this weekend. And as far as your other post - I wrote a really long response that was just too wordy - so bear with me but I'll break down my feelings on it as best as I can while being brief. 1. If you hire an architect to come in and build your structure - you don't tell him "Make it as good as you can, but leave the base how it is and build from there." You also can't hire a CEO of a major bank and then put him in a Steel company and tell him "just do what we do here and do it our way." My point just being that if you actually trust a guy enough to give him full reign and the reason that you are hiring him is to make the major decisions, you almost have to let them start. Yes they do deserve to be judged on those decisions, but sometimes in Football despite us wanting it now it DOES take time. Should we hold our entire front office and team accountable? Absolutely. I just worry that too often our fans see a glimmer of hope, annoint any progress whatsoever as the next coming of Jim Brown, Paul Brown, or Otto Graham ... and then call for the guys' head when he can't meet said fan's expectations0 whether or not the expectations are even real or just a product of wearing the homerism glasses. A few that come to mind recently ... Quinn, Frye?, Edwards (though that's debatable) Wimbley after his rookie year, Shaun Rogers after 1 year, Vickers, Wright, Sean Jones, Cribbs? (perhaps it's only a matter of time?), Hillis...? are those two next? Is it too early to throw McCoy in that list even though it's this early? You could probably name dozens more I was just going off of some that I know have been controversial in the past couple of years ... but it goes back. We look for heroes and then rather accepting them for what they are or giving them time to grow we cry "Not fast enough" and "We deserve better!" And that might be true. I can't imagine being a fan since '64 and seeing year after year of the same thing. But statistics principles show that just because we won or didn't win last year doesn't mean we will win or won't win this year. It's a new season. Waiting 2 years or waiting 52 doesn't really have a bearing on how we win. Other teams won't look at us and say "yeah their fans deserve it this year... let's let them roll us." In fact ... the only reason we even HAVE Holmgren is because some fans protested and met with Lerner and "demanded" change in some sense ... So we finally bring in a guy who will have a chance to do it HIS way .. the RIGHT way ... the guy who has taken not 1 but two franchises to superbowls and has already put together a (**Seemingly**) more competant front office than anything we have seen since the return and hopefully lightyears ahead ... and we haven't made it 1.5 seasons yet some fans are already threatening lighting a fire under his seat and blowing it up if we don't win X games by Y date.  Agree or disagree ... it just takes time.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
You got me there. I thought we were at 3-4 in 2007 after the St. Louis game but it was after our bye and we got the win to put us up 4-3. That season we were a DA collapse (or two) from playoffs.
We were also a blocked Phil Dawson field goal attempt and a defensive pants-crapping against Pittsburgh from the playoffs that season. I find it a bit humorous how often those are overlooked.
But I digress...
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.
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.
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?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
no LOL i just call em how i see em....
glasses might help you with that
Holmgrens first mistake: Ha Ha.. Look, I liked Mangini and defended him right up the point that I couldn't do it anymore. So I wasn't upset that he wasn't fired right off the bat.
I also understood Holmgrens stance on that issue. Couple of factors came into play.
1. Mangini appeared to have turned the team around at the end of the season.. 4 wins in a row is something you would think you could build on.
2. Holmgren believes that one year isn't enough to evaluate a HC. and he's probably right about that.
You view it as a mistake and I say that when you look at it "at the time" it didn't seem like a big mistake. But as with all critics, hindsight is 20/20.
Holmgren did something with that that many people wouldn't have. While Mangini didn't run the O that he liked or the D that he liked, Holmgren still knew that his way wasn't the only way to win.
Signing Delhomme wasn't a mistake,, signing him for the money he paid might have been. And it wasn't even close to a mistake of "vast proportions"
In case you hadn't noticed,, teams do that all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't..
And his third mistake... WOW WOW WOW.. Keeping Mangini was a mistake, Firing Mangini was a mistake.. Make up your freaking mind will ya...
For crying out loud, it was clear that Mangini wasn't getting it done. What do you want,, Holmgren to hang on to a clearly sinking ship.
Was it a perfect time to make changes? when is? there is no perfect time.
You just wanna complain..
#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 |
Quote:
You just wanna complain..
Actually he's spot on. Holmgren's indecisiveness with Mangini set the team back a year, and further handicapped it by heaping change onto it in a season where it was known that there would be a shortened offseason. There was no "perfect" time to make the decision, as you put it, but there was a sensible time, and that was the minute Holmgren was hired, at which point he needed to decide to either cut bait, even if he deemed it unfair, or ride out the storm of the locked out offseason with a coach who's philosophy wasn't in line with his own. He did neither.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Holmgren had to keep Mangini. You don't fire a first year coach that finished with a 4 game winning streak. Could you imagine the uproar if he fired Mangini and then starting the next season 0-5?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
Actually he's spot on.
Well, that's your opinion, and I don't agree even a little.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961 |
Quote:
Holmgren had to keep Mangini. You don't fire a first year coach that finished with a 4 game winning streak. Could you imagine the uproar if he fired Mangini and then starting the next season 0-5?
I'm pretty sure that he wasn't worried at all about the following season. I think, and yeah it's JMO, that Holmgren felt that Mangini did some good things towards the end of the season.
He had to give him more time not because he was worried about going 0-5 or worse. If you are installing new systems with new players and new coaches, it's reasonable to not hit the ground running full speed out of the gates. (at least it's reasonable for some of us, others just like to complain)
I am pretty sure that Holmgren is confident enough to have withstood that.
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.
#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 |
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.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Is Shurmur hurting this team?
|
|
