|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
We had a lot of fumbles from the QB position last year as well. I do wonder somewhat if it is coaching. McCoy had 11 fumbles last year (losing 2) in 13 games, and Wallace had 1 in limited action. (lost)
That seems like a lot of fumbling by the QBs to me.
IMHO that's one of the inherent problems of taking spread QB's from college. They were never pressured like they have been in the NFL, and unfortunately, especially behind our bad lines here in Cleveland. They got to sit back there and just wing it, not too much unlike a flag football league, hehe. So there's an adjustment period. Hell, more like pure culture shock.
Weeden will never have the kind of time in the NFL that he got in college. Part of his huge learning curve will be to adjust to that.
***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: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Quote:
We had a lot of fumbles from the QB position last year as well. I do wonder somewhat if it is coaching. McCoy had 11 fumbles last year (losing 2) in 13 games, and Wallace had 1 in limited action. (lost)
That seems like a lot of fumbling by the QBs to me.
It's all McCoys fault, he's teaching the other two guys how to do it 
I'm really sorry Ytown,, I just had to have some fun with you., Just chalk it up to it being monday and I actually had a beer last night for the first time in a month LOL
#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: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
We had a lot of fumbles from the QB position last year as well. I do wonder somewhat if it is coaching. McCoy had 11 fumbles last year (losing 2) in 13 games, and Wallace had 1 in limited action. (lost)
That seems like a lot of fumbling by the QBs to me.
Do botched snaps under center and bad shotgun snaps count as fumbles for the QB? Just asking because I don't know.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Do botched snaps under center and bad shotgun snaps count as fumbles for the QB? Just asking because I don't know.
great question. i would think under center snaps would have to be (how could you tell if the OC or QB was the one that messed up?). I would think shotgun snaps would be as well, but obviously some of those are not the QBs fault.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
We had a lot of fumbles from the QB position last year as well. I do wonder somewhat if it is coaching. McCoy had 11 fumbles last year (losing 2) in 13 games, and Wallace had 1 in limited action. (lost)
That seems like a lot of fumbling by the QBs to me.
I'm not seeing where Colt had 11 fumbles last year. This shows only 6. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?t...s=RUSHING_YARDS
Granted - that's 6 fumbles in "rushing" attempts, and I can't find "total" fumbles anywhere. Did he really have 11 total fumbles last year?
Edit: Found it. Yup, 11 of them.
http://www.nfl.com/player/coltmccoy/497123/profile
Last edited by archbolddawg; 08/27/12 02:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,076
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,076 |
Quote:
Mac, those are rational thoughts. I agree with them. They are fundamentally different, though, than what you'd said earlier, which is essentially that if Haslam doesn't stay the course he's not a smart owner (paraphrasing).
So here's the question I might pose to anyone who'd care to answer it: If this team plays very bad football and doesn't show improvement outside the realm of wins and losses and Haslam blows the thing up, would people view him as a bum or allow him to rebuild the organization in his image?
OK... I'll bite.
I think the operative phrase "outside the realm of wins and losses" narrows things down quite nicely... and gives focus to the debate.
As a long-suffering Browns fan, I'll be torn. Part of me would try to understand, but another part will feel the same frustration I've experienced every 3.2 years since 1999.
It's apparent to me that the "wholesale change" approach has never worked for us. Part of that is due to the dubious personnel choices that Randy made, part of it is due to poor drafts made by that personnel... and part of it was just bad chemistry from bad matchups.. Crennel, Savage, Kokinis, Chudz, Mangini- all were good football men , none were good fits with each other (in their respective capacities) here.
Much preferable would be for Haslam to make surgical changes with personnel that aren't working, than to bust out the Big Broom. It's a harder, more exacting process, but ultimately better for the team. Using Pitt as my example, we can see them make one or two changes every 3-5 years. When they make those changes, they move on without so much as a hiccup. I think Jimmy saw that consistency in Pittsburgh, and would like to establish the same here in Cleveland.
We have NEVER done that since the Modell years... and I think that's why our modern record resembles their early-days record. Similar approaches yield similar results.
We have what I think is a decent coaching staff in place, with Jauron, Chilly and some of our position coaches. Shurmer- jury's still out. Heckert has made moves that made sense to me, bringing in young talent, and waiting to be judicious in his use of FA's. For perhaps the first time since The Return, it looks like a plan is being worked. with a sense of unity and cohesion.... and it would be a shame to do a total 'blow up' with this many key people in place, all rowing in the same direction.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,447
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,447 |
OK... I'll bite. What surgical moves would YOU make ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Clem I agree ... I don't see the wholesale changes coming as the media and many outsiders (and some Browns fans around here) thinks is a forgone conclusion.
Surgical or tactical moves is what I foresee and really all teams even the established franchises like the Steelers still make some changes from year to year.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 08/27/12 03:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
Quote:
Quote:
We had a lot of fumbles from the QB position last year as well. I do wonder somewhat if it is coaching. McCoy had 11 fumbles last year (losing 2) in 13 games, and Wallace had 1 in limited action. (lost)
That seems like a lot of fumbling by the QBs to me.
Do botched snaps under center and bad shotgun snaps count as fumbles for the QB? Just asking because I don't know.
Honestly, I don't know. I was just stunned at the total number of QB fumbles last year. (even though we only lost 3 of them)
I would have to believe that a bad snap by the Center would not be charged against the QB. I would also have to believe that a bad snap over the head of the punter would not be a fumble on him. I really can't say for sure though.
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: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Honestly, I don't know. I was just stunned at the total number of QB fumbles last year. (even though we only lost 3 of them)
I would have to believe that a bad snap by the Center would not be charged against the QB. I would also have to believe that a bad snap over the head of the punter would not be a fumble on him. I really can't say for sure though
Most of the time the QB gets credited with the fumble. Rightly or wrongly ... to me I think that a player should have to have control of the ball first before being credited with a fumble.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
OK, Looking back, in 2009, using one of my favorite sites, Ryan Pontbriand was credited with a fumble. (Under "Fumbles" at the bottom) http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2009.htmIn 2003, Jeff Faine was credited with 3 fumbles, and Melvin Fowler had 1 as well. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2003.htmDave Wohlabaugh was credited with 1 fumble in 2002. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2002.htmSo it does look like a bad snap does count against the Center.
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: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
It's apparent to me that the "wholesale change" approach has never worked for us. Part of that is due to the dubious personnel choices that Randy made, part of it is due to poor drafts made by that personnel... and part of it was just bad chemistry from bad matchups.. Crennel, Savage, Kokinis, Chudz, Mangini- all were good football men , none were good fits with each other (in their respective capacities) here.
Not to split hairs here Clem buddy but isn't that all really just ONE issue?
If you have good football men who can't get along and aren't on the same page... and you have men making really bad draft picks.... doesn't that all go back to your first point about dubious personnel choices at the top?
I'm sure Jimmy wants to establish the same type of continuity that the Steelers have enjoyed for so long, the question is... will he want to establish it with what we have or will he want to bring in a new group and start continuity from scratch.
I'm sure Randy WANTED continuity. I doubt his intention was to have to hire 3 or 4 new people every few years while still paying the old people.... its about finding the right people, I think we are in a good place for that right now... I hope Jimmy gives it a chance to play out.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
J/C
Hopefully the continuity he's (Haslan) seen with the Steelers as well as his apparent business success will allow him to see what's working and what isn't, and, as Clem said, change a few pieces if necessary. I look at when the Steelers brought in Tomlin. I'm pretty sure he was a 4-3 defense guyú but he realized that he had Dick Lebeau and one of the best 3-4s in the league, so he left what was working alone. He didn't get rid of Lebeau just to bring in his own guy.
Some people assume that Haslan is automatically going to clean house just to bring in HIS guys. If he's learned anything from his short stint with Pittsburgh, I hope its that just because you didn't bring the guy in doesn't mean he can't be the guy to get the job done.
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: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
Mac, those are rational thoughts. I agree with them. They are fundamentally different, though, than what you'd said earlier, which is essentially that if Haslam doesn't stay the course he's not a smart owner (paraphrasing).
So here's the question I might pose to anyone who'd care to answer it: If this team plays very bad football and doesn't show improvement outside the realm of wins and losses and Haslam blows the thing up, would people view him as a bum or allow him to rebuild the organization in his image?
toad...I said the same thing both times...making the point if Haslam comes in and rips it all up, he will be no better than past owners.
If you read my first post and took it to mean Haslam could not make "any changes", or he would be no different than the previous owners...that is on you. It would be unrealistic of any fan to believe a new owner would not make some changes.
But Haslam stated he believes in building the franchise roster via the draft, which is exactly what Lerner, Holmgren and Heckert started in 2010 when the 5 yr plan was started.
But again, if Haslam comes in and cleans house, setting the franchise back years, he will be a hypocrite, IMO....no better than Randy Lerner before the Holmgren/Heckert rebuild was started.
I hope and believe Haslam is smarter than that...
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,076
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,076 |
Quote:
OK... I'll bite.
What surgical moves would YOU make ?
That, I'd have to determine AFTER this season, if I were the owner. Were our positions coached well? How well did the D perform overall? The O? How were the HC's in-game coaching decisions over the course of the season?
I'd evaluate ALL of it- everyone... and make ONLY the changes I felt were necessary for improvement. If Shurmz needs to go, but I can keep Chilly and Jauron- fine. If one of them (or one of their position/squad coaches) needs to go- so be it.
In other words, I'd do everything possible to maintain continuity... and leave a wholesale purge as a viable but LAST resort.
Seems only prudent to me.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560 |
Quote:
But again, if Haslam comes in and cleans house, setting the franchise back years, he will be a hypocrite, IMO....no better than Randy Lerner before the Holmgren/Heckert rebuild was started.
The guy has made a few comments. Comments any new owner/manager is going to say.
Anything he does that goes against what he has said to this point isn't being a hypocrite. We do have to allow him some time to come to some conclusions other that the initial comments made by a new owner.
I don't really like things blown up either, but the reality is what we have isn't looking all that good. It's easy to get stuck in mediocre, and we aren't even that.
This season is everybody's test. That is as fair as fair can be...1 year probation to show Jimmy things are headed in the right direction.
You invest a billion bucks, damn right you are going to have some say in things.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
General comment Thankfully the new owner was in the dawg pound during a preseason game to gadge the actual fan base on a bad night for the team.
It should give him a huge amount of perspective on just how out of touch the fans are with what the team is tryiing to accomplish.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
You invest a billion bucks, damn right you are going to have some say in things.
And he should too. I don't think that is such a bad thing ... sure you have a few owners though the years who's meddling I think have bit their tales to spite the faces, but the majority of good franchises have hands on owners.
Most know that there are people who can do the tactical things much better then they can and stick to strategic planning. I'm not concerned so much with that.
I'm one of those who thought it was good that he was clearly unhappy with last weeks game.
With that said he strikes me as a very successful business man that wouldn't be driven by knee jerk reactions.
Emotions are good. He wants to be the owner of a winning team.
He stands to be a member of the very successful "Big Boy's Club" very soon.
(what a dream come true)
These owners in this very exclusive club are for the most part very competitive in their own right vs each other.
In Jimmy hehe ... I think we have a player. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's apparent to me that the "wholesale change" approach has never worked for us. Part of that is due to the dubious personnel choices that Randy made, part of it is due to poor drafts made by that personnel... and part of it was just bad chemistry from bad matchups.. Crennel, Savage, Kokinis, Chudz, Mangini- all were good football men , none were good fits with each other (in their respective capacities) here.
Not to split hairs here Clem buddy but isn't that all really just ONE issue?
If you have good football men who can't get along and aren't on the same page... and you have men making really bad draft picks.... doesn't that all go back to your first point about dubious personnel choices at the top?
I'm sure Jimmy wants to establish the same type of continuity that the Steelers have enjoyed for so long, the question is... will he want to establish it with what we have or will he want to bring in a new group and start continuity from scratch.
I'm sure Randy WANTED continuity. I doubt his intention was to have to hire 3 or 4 new people every few years while still paying the old people.... its about finding the right people, I think we are in a good place for that right now... I hope Jimmy gives it a chance to play out.
well, if Jimmy has learned anything, I hope he's learned that you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
make choices, stick with them, support them, guide them,
Now that's easy to say for the steelers. they've had three coaches since 1969.
Noll is really the only one that struggled in the beginning but then built a dynasty. Then he struggled towards the end of his career in Pittsburgh when they brought in Cowher who really didn't have a super bad year. just some, not so good ones. but they were far and few between.
The constant was the players they picked in they draft or in FA. They blended them well and they stuck with a system. Their system. They didn't waver much at all but they did use what they had. (remember the Flash years) They don't have a Kordell Stewart type guy so that part of the plan is out.
If you look back, they made very few if any "knee jerk" reactions. everything was calculated.
If Jimmy picked anything up from Pittsburgh, I hope he learned to find good players and find a staff that will use them to their best potential.
they Developed a system or method if you will, and no matter what the latest fad was, they didn't budge. They stuck to it. some years it paid off, some years it didn't. But the Steelers were always a team you could count on to put up a fight.
Rinse and repeat each year. and you have a Consistent winner
#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: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
"They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years (since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999) and that's just not a good recipe," Haslam told SI.com's Peter King. "One thing I learned from watching the Steelers is the importance of consistency in coaching, and how much it sets you back when you're always making a change. When you change coaches, it can be a three- or four-year deal to get back."
web page
Quote:
MAC-
...I take the man at his word.
This is in reference where you've stated Haslam is a hypocrite if he makes wholesale changes.
You may be taking him at his word, but I think you are taking him at your interpretation of his word.
Big difference.
I see nowhere in that quote where Haslam says he's going to stick with the coaching staff no matter what.
What I DO see is that he understands that consistency in coaching is important.
Those are two very different concepts. He surely wants to keep the coaches together, but makes ZERO promises that he'll do just that.
What he said is common knowledge. If in his opinion the team craps out because of poor management and coaching and starts over, I won't call him a hypocrite. I'll call him his own man. If you then call him a hypocrite, it'll be because you didn't really understand what he said. You just heard what you wanted to hear.
***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: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
General comment Thankfully the new owner was in the dawg pound during a preseason game to gadge the actual fan base on a bad night for the team.
It should give him a huge amount of perspective on just how out of touch the fans are with what the team is tryiing to accomplish.
The last thing this org needs is an owner that doesn't know football in depth listen to homers who do not know football at all
Haslam can talk whatever he wants and sit in the DP every game....I really don't care....I'll judge him by his actions
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
Toad...you can try all you want to change what Haslam said...but his own words mean what they say...
In reference to the quote below, according to Haslam...
...."They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years (since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999) and that's just not a good recipe," Haslam told SI.com's Peter King. "One thing I learned from watching the Steelers is the importance of consistency in coaching, and how much it sets you back when you're always making a change. When you change coaches, it can be a three- or four-year deal to get back."....
... the Browns changing coaches every 2.8 years hurt the franchise rather than helping to develop the Browns into a winner.
...it is also important to have coaching consistency because if a franchise changes coaches it can set the franchise back 3 or 4 yrs each time a coaching change is made.
I must say, I agree with Haslam and I have little doubt, coaching consistency is one of the core principles he learned as a minority owner of the Steelers.
If we apply Haslam's logic to the Browns since returning in 99, he identified one of the major reasons the Browns have not succeeded since their return. It did set the Browns back with each coaching change and it took time to recover with each change in coaching staff as each coach came in with a different coaching philosophy.
In short, the Browns have been in a constant state of change since their return in 99. It's difficult to disagree with Haslam's belief in the need for coaching consistency and easy to see why Haslam spoke out on the need for coaching consistency.
Coming from the Steelers organization where they average a change in head coaches every 14.6 years, going back to 1969...and comparing the Steelers coaching consistency with the Browns, since returning in 1999, changing head coaches every 2.8 yrs...the lack of coaching consistency by the Browns is a glaring weakness of this franchise.
In the interview with Peter King, Haslam publicly volunteered his opinion on one of his core beliefs concerning the need for coaching consistency. If Haslam dismantles this coaching staff at the end of the season, he will have set himself up as a hypocrite to his own stated beliefs, concerning coaching consistency.
That said, Haslam does have some wiggle room if he makes a coaching change, by promoting someone from within the organization. With Brad Childress on the coaching staff, Haslam could make a head coaching change and still maintain the coaching consistency he is promoting. Also, there would be no need for major changes on the offensive side and the defensive staff could remain intact.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
OK... I'll bite.
What surgical moves would YOU make ?
That, I'd have to determine AFTER this season, if I were the owner. Were our positions coached well? How well did the D perform overall? The O? How were the HC's in-game coaching decisions over the course of the season?
I'd evaluate ALL of it- everyone... and make ONLY the changes I felt were necessary for improvement. If Shurmz needs to go, but I can keep Chilly and Jauron- fine. If one of them (or one of their position/squad coaches) needs to go- so be it.
In other words, I'd do everything possible to maintain continuity... and leave a wholesale purge as a viable but LAST resort.
Seems only prudent to me.
Clem, I guess this is where you and I will disagree. My hope is that the new owner makes a decision on upper managment... President and GM... then let them decide whether or not the RB coach and LB coach are any good. My hope is that he sticks with Holmy and Heckert.... The last thing we need is a truck stop owner and former minority owner of the Steelers, who had virtually no decision making authority, deciding on position coaches.
There are only 2 jobs he should be looking at... President and GM... it should be THEIR call on anybody below that.
At least that's how I hope it plays out.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Toad...you can try all you want to change what Haslam said...but his own words mean what they say...
They say nothing more than that coaching changes are bad news.
What they DON'T say is that Haslam refuses to change coaches.
What YOU said is that if he changes coaches quickly he's no different than any of the other owners and thus part of the problem.
His words, then your words. Not mine. So if Haslam decides that these coaches stink after this season and fires them, you're going to call him a loser like the Lerner's, and that's unfair.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Haslam says he thinks its important to have consistency in coaching. Read that as "have a coach there for a long time... don't change coaches at the first (or maybe even second) sign of failure."
What he didn't say was that Shurmur is the guy he wants there for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Which is exactly what I'm trying to explain to Mac.
Any dope knows...KNOWS...that consistency in keeping a coaching staff is critical. That isn't news for even the most novice football fan. But if an owner decides that a staff is crap, he'd be an even bigger dope to keep a regime when it's not working just for the sake of continuity.
The perfect example of that isn't the Steelers, but the Lions. Year after year after year they kept Matt Millen and his band of merry idiots, and year after year after year they kept losing. Finally...FINALLY...the Fords heard enough of the laughter and fired Millen. Mahew steps in, puts new people in place, makes some different draft picks, and now, quite quickly, they are a playoff team and a Super Bowl contender.
What Mac is really saying is that if Haslam fires the staff and starts over he's a liar and a dope. He mistakenly believes that Haslam has stated quite clearly that he isn't going to make wholesale changes.
Haslam said nothing of the sort.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
they are a playoff team and a Super Bowl contender
ah, err...first part is very true. they were a playoff team last year (largely due to Cutler and Forte getting injured, but it still counts). the 2nd part I do not believe is true until they fix their defensive backfield (and they didn't this past offseason).
they also got more defensive TDs than usual and won a bunch of other "luck" factors. I'm thinking they are in for a regression this season.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
Quote:
Toad...you can try all you want to change what Haslam said...but his own words mean what they say...
They say nothing more than that coaching changes are bad news.
What they DON'T say is that Haslam refuses to change coaches.
What YOU said is that if he changes coaches quickly he's no different than any of the other owners and thus part of the problem.
His words, then your words. Not mine. So if Haslam decides that these coaches stink after this season and fires them, you're going to call him a loser like the Lerner's, and that's unfair.
Toad...where did I ever say anything about "changing coaches quickly"?
Matter of fact, Haslam never said a thing about "changing coaches quickly" , either.
"Quickly" is Toad's word and has not been defined...
Toad, on this... "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years (since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999) and that's just not a good recipe," Haslam told SI.com's Peter King. "One thing I learned from watching the Steelers is the importance of consistency in coaching, and how much it sets you back when you're always making a change. When you change coaches, it can be a three- or four-year deal to get back."...
...Jimmy Haslam and I agree.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Toad...you can try all you want to change what Haslam said...but his own words mean what they say...
They say nothing more than that coaching changes are bad news.
What they DON'T say is that Haslam refuses to change coaches.
What YOU said is that if he changes coaches quickly he's no different than any of the other owners and thus part of the problem.
His words, then your words. Not mine. So if Haslam decides that these coaches stink after this season and fires them, you're going to call him a loser like the Lerner's, and that's unfair.
Toad...where did I ever say anything about "changing coaches quickly"?
Matter of fact, Haslam never said a thing about "changing coaches quickly" , either.
"Quickly" is Toad's word and has not been defined...
Toad, on this... "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years (since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999) and that's just not a good recipe," Haslam told SI.com's Peter King. "One thing I learned from watching the Steelers is the importance of consistency in coaching, and how much it sets you back when you're always making a change. When you change coaches, it can be a three- or four-year deal to get back."...
...Jimmy Haslam and I agree.
You never used the word "quickly".. this is what you said..
Quote:
Browns fans are going find out if Jimmy Haslam is any different than the previous owners, Al and Randy Lerner.
If Haslam come in a rips it all up, with mass firings, he will be just like the other owners and somewhat of a "hypocrit".
That sure sounds like "quickly" to me.. if he comes in and rips it all up...
And you are wrong. Haslam gets ONE chance to rip it up and start over before you can call him a hypocrit... if he rips it up again 2 years later... THEN he is a hypocrit. As others have pointed out to you, he says he wants continuity, which is good.. he never said he wants it with Shurmur, Heckert, etc...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7 |
Colt was better than Wheeden in college
Colt is better than Wheeden now
As far as the future, Colt is a few years younger than Wheeden
Colt McCoy gives the Browns the best chance to win right now. Handing the job to Wheeden without a competition was absurd. I lost quite a bit of respect for Shurmur, not that ive ever thought he was more than a mediocre head coach. Why cant the Browns get better head coaches?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,482
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,482 |
 Well....that's ONE way to go with your first post. Oh yeah and it's "Weeden"  .
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/GraffZ06/browns_factory_sig.jpg) Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,560 |
Quote:
Quote:
Toad...you can try all you want to change what Haslam said...but his own words mean what they say...
They say nothing more than that coaching changes are bad news.
What they DON'T say is that Haslam refuses to change coaches.
What YOU said is that if he changes coaches quickly he's no different than any of the other owners and thus part of the problem.
His words, then your words. Not mine. So if Haslam decides that these coaches stink after this season and fires them, you're going to call him a loser like the Lerner's, and that's unfair.
Toad.....don't spend much time on that.
JMO.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Colt was better than Wheeden in college
Colt is better than Wheeden now
As far as the future, Colt is a few years younger than Wheeden
Colt McCoy gives the Browns the best chance to win right now. Handing the job to Wheeden without a competition was absurd. I lost quite a bit of respect for Shurmur, not that ive ever thought he was more than a mediocre head coach. Why cant the Browns get better head coaches?
Shrumur did name him the starter, but that was the idea this FO and Coaching staff had when we Drafted him with the 22nd selection.
Singling out the Head Coach is an unfair criticism imo.
Welcome to Dawg Talkers Message Boards.
Oh! and btw, Coach Shrumur has had nothing but good things to say about how Colt McCoy has not only progressed, but also how he has handled himself threw adversity.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 08/28/12 08:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151 |
moreso i think it is about the fit.
We have had an offense that is ball control that we want to be quick strike...that quick strike part of it is how we keep 8 out of the box against our offense.
Its something Colt just couldnt do. He doesnt have the accuracy on the deep ball that Weeden has. He cant pull the top off the defense which doesnt open up the underneath routes that the WCO predicates itself upon. Without that deep threat (and the fear that a one-on-one ending up in a deep throw taking big chunks of real estate and possibly TDs, the defense can stack the box, flood the short zones and suffocate the offense as evidenced by last season. The additions of Gordon, Benjamin, and Brandon Weedon allow us to stretch the D which will open up the short zones and run game which make our offense successful.
Love Colt and love his moxie, but Weeden brings a threat to the offense Colt doesnt, which allows us to be more successful.
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start somehow
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
hey Case. sorry about the competition with Ash. bad offseason for the family. anyways, if you want to grab a beer downtown Austin, let me know. welcome to the board
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Pretty good way to put it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Colt was better than Wheeden in college
Colt 2009: 70.6 comp %, 7.5 AVG/PA, 27 TDs, 12 INTs in 470 PAs
Weeden 2011: 72.3% , 8.4, 37 TDs, 13 INTs in 564 PAs
Bye, bye "argument" Mr.McCoy 
@KingSteve
I've been saying exactly this since the start of last season...it was painfully evident just from watching him his rook season that Colt just doesn't have starter talent. Not only does he lack the arm to make plays but also his decision making is way to slow for this league, he just holds onto the ball for way too long. The biggest mistake of this org was to hand him the 2011 season without serious competition
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
He didn't say "in their final year of college"..
Colt 70.3%, 8.1 ypa, 112 TD, 45 INT..... Record 45-8
Weeden 69.5%, 8.4 ypa, 75 TD, 27 INT... Record 23-3
Looks pretty darn close to me.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Brandon Weeden named starting QB
Part 2
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)