|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 848
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 848 |
I'm not saying he knowingly hired a bad coach to help an old pal. But SF hired Harbaugh, and that worked out extremely well. Did we try to get him? I don't know how hard we tried for a big name guy like Gruden or Fisher. Shurmur wasn't exactly the in-demand, hot young assistant - he was a relative unknown. And there's no denying he's been bad this year. Being his own OC has really put him in over his head. He could become a good coach, but with this easy schedule, we'd have probably won twice as many games just by sticking with Mangini (ugh!). Maybe it's one step back to take two steps forward, or maybe we're gonna be looking again this time next year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
ok, let's go through your list.
Harbaugh - not a WCO guy and we know that Holmgren wanted everyone on the same page this time. Doubt we considered him much.
Gruden - it has been reported Holmgren did consider him, talk to him and Gruden would have come here. But, he was only willing to out of respect for Holmgren and his heart really wasn't in coming back. So, Holmgren told him he needed more and moved on.
Fisher - considering he was still HC of the Titans at the time, I doubt we considered him (he was fired/retired later)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 848
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 848 |
Well, I hope Shurmur grows into the job. He has energy and maybe charisma. He was an unimaginative playcaller and didn't handle the clock all that well this year, but that could get better with an OC and a little more seasoning. I want him to succeed.
But anything less than, gulp, 7-9 next year will tell me we are on the wrong track. Going backwards this year, even with an easy schedule, might be forgiven due to the lack of an offseason, Hillis' problems and losing Steinbach. But man, we've got to see some tangible improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004 |
Quote:
Quote:
The longer this year goes on, the more I think that Hillis will be back next year ...... quite possibly on a 1 year deal.
I agree.
Hardesty will be the odd man out next year, IMO. He is the worst runner on the team, and Jackson will be coming back.
I think that Hardesty will be here too. Heckert has said all along that he doesn't expect to see the "real" Hardesty till next year. (coming back from the injury)
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: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
I'm not saying he knowingly hired a bad coach to help an old pal. But SF hired Harbaugh, and that worked out extremely well. Did we try to get him? I don't know how hard we tried for a big name guy like Gruden or Fisher. Shurmur wasn't exactly the in-demand, hot young assistant - he was a relative unknown. And there's no denying he's been bad this year. Being his own OC has really put him in over his head. He could become a good coach, but with this easy schedule, we'd have probably won twice as many games just by sticking with Mangini (ugh!). Maybe it's one step back to take two steps forward, or maybe we're gonna be looking again this time next year.
Someone already answered why none of those you mentioned didn't get hired. Do you have others you wanted them to consider? Or is that just the names you recognize?
And your original post indicated that you felt that Shurmur was hired because he was Fritz Shurmurs nephew without any consideration to where he's been, who he worked for, what type of offense he was used to running.
Regarding him hiring a bad coach, You, like so many others, give no credence to the fact that he was installing a new offense with virtually no communication with his QB or Offensive players due to the lockout.
You just make it sound as if NOTHING else matters..
the problem is, this off seasons mess figures in prominently into the equation as to why we are where we are. That and a lack of receivers that can actually hang on to the ball and a running game that was almost non existent and a line that didn't/couldn't protect his young QB .
You also leave out any reference to the comments that Holmgren made a few weeks ago about hiring an OC in the off season to lighten the load on Shurmur. And that they tried to hire one last season but the guy they wanted wasn't available so they went with Shurmur to do both jobs.
Your comment is pretty typical of a fan that sees a result, doesn't take a moment to understand the problem, then jumps to the conclusion that someone was hired because they were someones nephew..
#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, like so many others, give no credence to the fact that he was installing a new offense with virtually no communication with his QB or Offensive players due to the lockout.
What's Ron Rivera's excuse?
Look, Pat Shurmur isn't a bad head coach right now because the team isn't winning games. If that were the case, either 1) good head coaches would never lose games, or 2) there would be no good head coaches. No, he's a bad head coach because he makes poor decisions and stupid, avoidable mistakes. Whether or not he can learn and grow and eliminate those mistakes remains to be seen. But right now he's a bad head coach, possibly the worst in the NFL.
On the other hand, the Browns lose games because they're strapped for talent. Some of that is due to injuries (Steinbach, Hillis) and that simply can't be accounted for, but there's a good chunk of it that is simply due to the front office not infusing the roster with very much talent. Whether or not its prudent to do so via trades and free agency isn't really relevant, because the bottom line is that the talent just isn't here right now, regardless of reason. And the lack of talent is hurting this team far more than the lack of an offseason did.
In any event, the Browns aren't going to be a successful team until the coaching improves AND the talent level increases. There, that should win me a nice shiny Captain Obvious award.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,038
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,038 |
Quote:
Look, Pat Shurmur isn't a bad head coach right now because the team isn't winning games. If that were the case, either 1) good head coaches would never lose games, or 2) there would be no good head coaches. No, he's a bad head coach because he makes poor decisions and stupid, avoidable mistakes. Whether or not he can learn and grow and eliminate those mistakes remains to be seen. But right now he's a bad head coach, possibly the worst in the NFL.
Can you expand on this a bit?
I'm curious as to what you think the poor decisions and stupid, avoidable mistakes are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 848
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 848 |
Yeesh, fine. The fact that he was Holmgren's buddy's nephew played no role whatsover in his hiring. An exhaustive search concluded that he was the best available coach on the planet.
I said Shurmur might turn out to be a good coach. If that's not good enough, and you want me to defy all reason and say we've had a great year, I can't do it. We've had a bad year. And, by the way, was Jim Harbaugh able to hold OTAs?
And Holmgren talking about "lightening the load" by hiring an OC is him spinning the fact that it didn't work this year. Seems like the time to lighten the load would be the rookie's first year. The one guy they wanted wasn't available? That's just idiotic. If Dick Jauron wasn't available, would Shurmy be running the defense, too?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
Look, Pat Shurmur isn't a bad head coach right now because the team isn't winning games. If that were the case, either 1) good head coaches would never lose games, or 2) there would be no good head coaches. No, he's a bad head coach because he makes poor decisions and stupid, avoidable mistakes. Whether or not he can learn and grow and eliminate those mistakes remains to be seen. But right now he's a bad head coach, possibly the worst in the NFL.
Can you expand on this a bit?
I'm curious as to what you think the poor decisions and stupid, avoidable mistakes are.
I think the apparent decision-making behind playcalling often leaves a lot to be desired, without citing specific plays in specific games. There have been instances where I felt he abandoned the run game far too early. I feel that he outsmarts himself from time to time (Ogbonnaya on third and long comes to mind). Early on in the season he was too reactionary to the criticisms he was receiving from the public and the press (for example, his quip about how he gave Montario Hardesty a bunch of carries in a game, which should make the media happy, in response to criticisms of not giving him enough carries in the game prior). I hope he doesn't get as flustered on the sideline as he does in his press conferences ("I saw somebody rolling their eyes, so I'm done now", to paraphrase.
I also think there are several times where he's not been prepared for situations or aware of what's going on on the field. We've had more instances of having less than 11 players on the field for a play than I've ever seen a team have. The hand-off to Alex Smith debacle. General lack of focus and discipline manifested in procedural penalties (which has seemed to taper off some as the season has gone on, and please, go ahead and tell me that its not his fault when a player false starts or doesn't line up properly).
Do you disagree? You feel Shurmur does a good job managing the team and the game on the sidelines on gameday?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Yeesh, fine. The fact that he was Holmgren's buddy's nephew played no role whatsover in his hiring.
LOL OK,, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give you such a hard time about it. But I never said that it didn't play a role in it.. You just made it sound as if that's the only reason and it's simply not.
As I said, there were other reasons to like Shurmur. plenty of them and since you didn't sit in on the interview, you CAN'T possibly know what was discussed and what issues arose that were ironed out and agreed upon.
Did he being Fritzs nephew mean anything.. sure,, I'd bet Holmgren was happy to hire a man that was related to Fritz and that he's known since his days of coaching in Green Bay.. (yeah, Holmgren mentioned that he's known Shurmur for a long long time ever since Fritz brought him to a couple of camps in GB)
Quote:
An exhaustive search concluded that he was the best available coach on the planet.
Do you know how many guys the contacted and which of those actually interviewed?
I"m sure there was a better candidate.. do you know if Holmgren or Heckert contacted them? Do you know if they didn't?
Your sarcasm isn't lost on me it's just not a good excuse for a REAL answer. Who would you rather they hire.. Give me names....
Quote:
I said Shurmur might turn out to be a good coach. If that's not good enough, and you want me to defy all reason and say we've had a great year, I can't do it. We've had a bad year. And, by the way, was Jim Harbaugh able to hold OTAs?
I'd never ask you to say we had a good year when it's clear we didn't. I don't remember asking that at all in fact.
I did however ask that you take more into consideration than JUST the record.
No, I don't think Harbaugh had OTA's. But he had a much more talented team of athletes to start with... I don't know for sure, but that may have had something to do with it. And while his QB wasn't an all pro, he's no rookie either. I"m not sure what Harbaugh did in SF has a lick of value here. There is NO saying that if he'd have come here we'd have 10 wins.
And again, Holmgren certainly appeared to want to bring the WCO to Cleveland and that's not Harbaughts style ( I don't believe it is anyway)
So why would they hire him if he's not going to bring the offense Holmgren wants? That would be senseless.. Might as well have kept Mangini.
I wanna make something perfectly clear. I don't know if Shurmur is going to work out.. I have no way of knowing what the future holds for certain.
But I'm sure as hell not going to judge him solely on the results of this season given the circumstances.
You may do so if you wish... But at least don't make crap up like he was hired because he's Holmgrens friends nephew as if that's the only freakin reason. That is insane thinking...
PS, I like how you deflected.. nice try...
#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:
Do you know how many guys the contacted and which of those actually interviewed?
They interviewed three candidates: Shurmur, Mike Mularky and Perry Fewell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
Do you know how many guys the contacted and which of those actually interviewed?
They interviewed three candidates: Shurmur, Mike Mularky and Perry Fewell.
and Holmgren talked to Cowher (not interested) and Gruden (said he would take the job for Holmgren, but wasn't fully invested)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Correct. I think Holmgren said they had a list of 9 or 10 guys that they initially were interested in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004 |
In fairness, Holmgren was the one that originally brought up Fritz Shurmur, their relationship, an dthe fact that this was how he knew Pat Shurmur.
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: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
It's not like giving his nephew a chance to break into the league as the assistant special teams coach... this is HC/OC...
And it's not like he did it for his ole buddy Fritz cause he passed away over 10 years ago.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
In fairness, Holmgren was the one that originally brought up Fritz Shurmur, their relationship, an dthe fact that this was how he knew Pat Shurmur.
That makes sense since Pat is Fritz's nephew. So Holmgren met him through Fritz over 10 years ago. But in all fairness I doubt very much that it played any part in Pat's hiring. As was said above, Pat Shurmur was groomed in Holmgren's offense. That makes a lot more sense than anything to do with hiring an old buddy's nephew.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But in all fairness I doubt very much that it played any part in Pat's hiring.
I would argue that it absolutely played a part.
How big of one? Hopefully a small one. But 'who you know' does trump 'what you know' quite often in this world.
In regards to Shumur ... I could play both sides of the coin - argue why he was absolutely unqualified to be an NFL HC, and then turn around and make a coherent argument as to why he was qualified.
As far as his performance as a HC this year ... can't make many coherent arguments there. Guy looks like a confused dud who will be gone in 3, a la Crennel. Yes, a part of that is what he has to work with ... but he hasn't done himself any favors, IMO.
He'll get his time to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
As far as his performance as a HC this year ... can't make many coherent arguments there. Guy looks like a confused dud who will be gone in 3, a la Crennel. Yes, a part of that is what he has to work with ... but he hasn't done himself any favors, IMO.
He'll get his time to prove me wrong.
I would imagine that Holmgren will apply a little extra effort to Shurmur in the off season to "season" him a bit more as it's Holmgren's legacy that's on the line. He can't have another season like this one and expect to be regarded as one of the greats of the game. He has to be successful here to garner that nod.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
Quote:
On the other hand, the Browns lose games because they're strapped for talent.
I disagree. I think this is one of the most talented Browns teams in a long time. Maybe the St Louis Rams lose games because they're strapped for talent. Maybe the Jaguars lose because of that.
I think the Browns lose games because the Coaching and the gameplans, and the teamwork of the talent on the Browns doesn't execute a performance that is as quick and effective as the opponent.
To make it more easy to understand, Each of the 11 are not short on talent, or speed, but
The group of 11 acting together in game situations (teamwork) is short on precision and speed. Also short on new ideas in individual plays that put players in positions of advantage.
Also, each of the 11, are they being taught and improved through the coaching, that equals the level that other teams teach and improve their players? Not just each of the 11, but the individual groups, like the teamwork or the Offensive line, the defensive front, the linebackers, etc.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
A questionable quarterback, two questionable offensive linemen, no running backs, a fullback who can't block, and receivers that can't run proper routes or catch the ball? And that's just on offense, where the only position group we have shored up is our tight ends.
On defense we have one very good and a couple decent DBs, 1.5 good LBers, and two good DLinemen.
I understand that saying this team is one of the most talented we've had is a comparative evaluation, but lets not mistake this team for being laden with talent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
Quote:
A questionable quarterback, two questionable offensive linemen, no running backs, a fullback who can't block, and receivers that can't run proper routes or catch the ball? And that's just on offense, where the only position group we have shored up is our tight ends.
On defense we have one very good and a couple decent DBs, 1.5 good LBers, and two good DLinemen.
I understand that saying this team is one of the most talented we've had is a comparative evaluation, but lets not mistake this team for being laden with talent.
Add to that a coach who does not make adjustments, predictable play calling a horrid special teams and it is only not just talent we are deficient in. Once Tennessee fired Fisher I thought' we could have had a V8 with our uninspiring choice. Shurmer has lived down to all the low expectations I had and add to that is his inability to take responsibility for any late game chokes and bad calls.
I see ZERO Leadership fro that guy. Face it. year two will not be appreciably better than year one while mangini Ryan probably is 8-8.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,657
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
I see ZERO Leadership fro that guy
In game coaching and leadership are two different things. This team played it's heart out in the last two games. That shows me a team that hasn't quit, and that comes from leadership.
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: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Quote:
Do you know how many guys the contacted and which of those actually interviewed?
They interviewed three candidates: Shurmur, Mike Mularky and Perry Fewell.
And who else did they contact...
#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: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
In fairness, Holmgren was the one that originally brought up Fritz Shurmur, their relationship, an dthe fact that this was how he knew Pat Shurmur.
In all fairness, if he hadn't, the press would have been all over it.,
I have no doubt that knowing Pat for all these years and him being the nephew of Mikes friend didn't hurt..
But you all would have to think that Mike Holmgren is an idiot to hire someone only because he's related to a friend..
Is that what people really think.. that holmgren is a complete idiot?
#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:
Quote:
Do you know how many guys the contacted and which of those actually interviewed?
They interviewed three candidates: Shurmur, Mike Mularky and Perry Fewell.
And who else did they contact...
Those three.
They contacted Cowher. He said no. The contacted Gruden. He wasn't into it 100%. Then they made a list of 9 or 10 candidates and whittled it down to the three that they interviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004 |
Someone said that Holmgren didn't consider it at all.
He obviously did. I do not believe that he would have considered Shurmur at all if there wasn't a long standing relationship. Shurmur's resume was the thinnest of all candidates interviewed. He is the least experienced. He has no head coaching experience anywhere.
Holmgren knew him for quite a while, and knew him because of an existing relationship with his uncle.
It's not that hard to believe that this was an important factor in his hiring. NFL types generally look to their "trees" when hiring. If a guy is from the Belichick tree, he looks for a Belichick coach. Ditto for a Reid. Same for a Holmgren. Same for when Bill Walsh was around. People look for a coach with a similar coaching philosophy and language ...... and that means someone you are familiar with if you are the top member of a tree, like Holmgren is.
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: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Someone said that Holmgren didn't consider it at all.
I never said that myself,, But my primary response to this line of thinking was to a poster that made it appear as if THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON he was hired.. and that is pure bunk..
#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 |
Actually, his comment was "hired an old buddy's nephew to be the coach". I guess you could extrapolate the implication that he hired him because he was an old buddy's nephew, but that would just be your interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Then why else mention it as "an old buddy's nephew" unless it was meant to imply something? Otherwise there's no connection.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,505
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,505 |
Really didn't know anything about the guy when was hired , seemed like a weak hire to me at the time .. After one season I would like to hear from Dawgs on what they THINK they saw ( Schmur's first season ) , good or bad ! .. Honestly he just left me numb ! I am really disappointed in the Big Show .. I was so excited when Lerner finally hired a Football guy for us ... Then came JD , Seneca & McCoy ( Ok ) and Schumur and his ( Holgrem ) disappearing act this year. ( well not in Seattle ) .. The thin skin act in front of the Cleveland Media a week ago ( what would NY do to him  ) .. The whole Hillis thing ! Right now I'm numb ! .. This a SUPER BIG off season for us as well as H & H .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,004 |
Well, I hated the Shurmur hire from the word go ...... but he is our coach now, and is going to be again next year, so they better get him some help so that he can be successful.
I didn't like the Jauron hire either, but he has done a lot better than I would have thought. The defense still has holes, and lacks discipline on occasion, but they have played better than I would have thought they would this year.
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: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Actually, his comment was "hired an old buddy's nephew to be the coach". I guess you could extrapolate the implication that he hired him because he was an old buddy's nephew, but that would just be your interpretation.
His actual comment that made me think he felt that was the only reason was this:
Quote:
One of Holmgren's biggest mistakes was, in addition to hiring an old buddy's unproven nephew to be the coach, LETTING HIM BE THE OC! And call the plays! That is ridiculous.
I don't think that was a big mistake at this point. it may end up being, but for now, all we really have is a team in transition that has a lack of talent and the coach and QB are taking all the heat..
The second comment about "letting him be the OC" is just plain wrong. If the original poster would have taken the time to look around, he'd have seen comments by Holmgren that state CLEARLY that they had an OC in mind but he wasn't available last year so rather than settle for someone else, they decided to have Shurmur do the playcalling.
Holmgren also said they'd probably hire an OC this offseason. he did say that Shurmur would continue to call plays, but I bet you that to get a quality OC, you are gonna have to let him call the plays. So that might go out the window.
Last edited by Damanshot; 12/25/11 03:21 PM.
#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 2011
Posts: 848
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 848 |
Fritz Shurmur's relationship with Holmgren clearly had something to do with Holmgren hiring Pat Shurmur. It may be that the relationship made Holmgren privy to a young up-and-comer who wasn't on anyone else's radar. In that case, it could be a great hire, due to Holmgren's football connections. If it doesn't work, well...
And as for Shurmur being his own OC, if it's a bad idea for next year, then surely it was a bad idea for this year. Saying you missed out on the guy you wanted for OC, so you had no choice but to let Shurmur do it is absurd. As I said earlier, that would mean that if they had targeted Jauron, and Jauron said no as well, Shurmur would be the DC, too. No, it was a mistake. The rookie coach was in over his head. He can certainly learn from it, but there's no glossing over it.
There's no way around the fact that we regressed this year. At the same time, I am optimistic that we can turn things around, given our picks and what I consider Heckert's astute drafting. I believe the three of them could find a QB and develop him into a star. That would be their collective skill set, and it would go a long way for turning this sad team around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
I do think it had to have something to do with it, But you would have to think that Holmgren is an idiot for him to hire a friends nephew SIMPLY because he was a friends nephew,
Holmgren isn't an idiot.
#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:
Then why else mention it as "an old buddy's nephew" unless it was meant to imply something? Otherwise there's no connection.
I don't know...I'm not the poster who made the statement. But its not like this is Chekhov's gun here. If he'd said "hiring a dopey looking guy who appears half-asleep on the sideline to be our head coach", would you jump to the conclusion that he thinks Shurmur was only hired because he looks half-asleep on the sideline during games? What about if he'd said, "the guy who coached Sam Bradford last season?" Was he then only hired because he coached Sam Bradford last season?
It was a largely innocuous descriptive phrase that apparently people want to just take and run with in whichever direction they choose. Then again, implication and innuendo are the names of the game around here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
If he'd said "hiring a dopey looking guy who appears half-asleep on the sideline to be our head coach", would you jump to the conclusion that he thinks Shurmur was only hired because he looks half-asleep on the sideline during games?
No, I would take that as the poster's opinion of Shurmur. In this scenario he's only talking about Shurmur.
Quote:
What about if he'd said, "the guy who coached Sam Bradford last season?" Was he then only hired because he coached Sam Bradford last season?
No, but I would take it that having coached Sam Bradford to a decent season may have played into the decision.
Quote:
It was a largely innocuous descriptive phrase...
That "largely innocuous descriptive phrase" brought Shurmur's uncle into it as though there was a connection implying "doing a favor" for an old friend who'd been dead for over 10 years. Nonsense.
Or possibly implying that Holmgren felt that since Fritz Shurmur was a very good defensive mind that it would have some bearing on how good a head coach Pat Shurmur may be because of the family resemblance. It's like thinking that since Holmgren worked with Joe Montana and he was such a great quarterback that Holmgren would think it would stand to reason that his nephew would be one too.
No matter how you try to decode it or try to defend it, the statement made no sense and was used only as a reaching out and grabbing for a negative implication regardless how ridiculous it sounds or the lack of importance it is in the long run.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
Quote:
Do QB's come out of college ready to plug in and play? If not what is the best way to "develop" a QB?
Do the Browns have any idea about how to develop a QB?
Legit questions. The history of QB's coming into the league and how they were handled and what were the results should beg all kinds of questions.
Look at the recent history of the Browns and maybe we can deduce how not to handle a QB.
Tim Coach however you rate him (good, bad, or ugly) was thrown into the lineup with very little preparation and under extreme adverse conditions. No line, few tools to work with and overall a pretty bad team. Result - little success, beaten to a pulp, and washed out of the game.
Look at the year Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers came out. How they were handled and what was the result? Smith drafted first went right to starting on a bad team. He struggled. Team changed HC"s, OC's, and systems. He got benched. Left for dead. Now after years of nothingness he is having a Pro Bowl year.
Rodgers everyone knows the story. Team continuity, sat and learned one offense. After three years of watching he gets his chance on a good team. He becomes all world.
Brady Quinn and flip the coin. What a fiasco. Not to say Quinn was or will ever be good but not what I would call "development".
Now Colt McCoy. Third rounder suppose to sit, observe, and learn. Circumstances arose and into the fire he goes. More than half of this season he is behind a pores line( with basically 2 rookie guards, and Tony Pashos playing on a bad ankle) (like he needs a bad ankle), and a fourth string RB, to go along with maybe the worst receiving corps in the league. Throw in no off season, new coaching staff, and new offensive and defensive schemes. Certainly a formula for great achievement.
Result - gee what a surprise loses and a concussion.
There is a right way to develop a QB. The problem is the pressure to win and to get results NOW, plus the money committed, the expectations of the fan base, and the overall position of the team, force bad decisions. Some teams like the Patriots and Packers have the roster, the time, and patience to do it right. Then there are teams like the Browns that are so hungry for results that anybody with an arm and a pulse looks better than what they have in there. So the fans scream "get the next guy in there" - kind of like "bring in a relief pitcher please". Then when the performance suffers they look for the noose and a neck to put in it.
I sure hope we get Andrew Luck or RG III . I'm sure they will save the day.
The browns have not developed anything. they have been on a maddening treadmill of lousy hires from front offices to coaches. How can any qb survive such turmoil.
we did it again. a horrid HC Hire of Uncle Fritz nephew who each week limbos UNDER the previous weeks new low and it is now all McCoys fault. lets ruin another qb with bad coaching, no line and no wrs. What doea Gannon know? he only PLAYED for 18 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
How you and others extracted "Holmgren only hired Pat Shurmur because he was the nephew of a friend" from the actual statement made is every bit as ridiculous as the notion itself, and is also as ridiculous as believing that the pre-existing relationship between Mike Holmgren and Pat Shurmur played no role or factor whatsoever into Shurmur's hiring.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Then tell me dear sir how you define the meaning of his original comment.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Of this one? Quote:
One of Holmgren's biggest mistakes was, in addition to hiring an old buddy's unproven nephew to be the coach, LETTING HIM BE THE OC!
Holmgren made a mistake in hiring an unproven head coach. That head coach is the nephew of an old friend (and former assistant coach...a connection I make by my own knowledge, not from this statement) of Mike Holmgren's. While hiring an unproven coach may not have been a wise choice in and of itself, putting him in the dual roles of head coach and offensive coordinator was a bigger mistake than just hiring him as the head coach.
Anything beyond that is inference and conclusions drawn from your own prejudices towards the situation, the people involved and the person making the statement. But as I said before, implication and innuendo are the order of the day on these forums.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum "Developing a Quarterback"
|
|
