|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
Attitude reflects leadership.
Pat threw in the towel last week. I expect the palyers to follow suit.
Then Pat compounded the problem by standing by his decision.
Weeden has a lot to prove as a 29 year old rookie. I expect he will give maximum effort the rest of the way. I expect most of the D to fully quit.
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Fort hangs onto that Vic pass in the endzone at the end of that game, Little catches that pass in the endzone vs Baltimore and Gordon makes that catch in the endzone yesterday and we have none of these conversations.
I'm not sure all of that's true. The Fort one is the only one that I think assured us of victory... the Little play in the endzone was only to tie the game correct? and the drop by Gordon would have given us a 3 point lead but with almost 7 minutes still on the clock... neither of those guarantee us a win.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Weedon commented on this play in the post-game radio show. He said, I think, that they had a play called, which might have been to draw them offsides. He clearly said that the timeout was because the play clock was running down. He did NOT seem happy with the ultimate play call. I'm guessing, but I think the plan was to go for the offsides, call time-out, and then punt. Ran out of clock.
We have been stuffed on short yardage several times this year, and earlier in this game. A better punt could have gotten us excellent field position. The defense was playing very well at this stage of the game.
I think I would've made the same call on fourth down.
Going long on second and 1 would have been brilliant if it had worked. 3rd and 1 I would have tried to get the first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I'm guessing, but I think the plan was to go for the offsides, call time-out, and then punt. Ran out of clock.
I made a lengthy post in a different thread in which I said that I don't think Pat can handle the job of being the HC and calling the plays... I think this is a result of him trying to do it all.
If I'm the HC and I decide to go long on 3rd and 1 in that situation, I already have the "draw them off-sides" called, in fact I do it with no huddle.. get the team reset as quickly as possible, keep the defense a little disorganized and confused then hard count them if that is what you want to do. But again, none of it was planned.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
If I'm the HC and I decide to go long on 3rd and 1 in that situation, I already have the "draw them off-sides" called, in fact I do it with no huddle.. get the team reset as quickly as possible, keep the defense a little disorganized and confused then hard count them if that is what you want to do. But again, none of it was planned.
Plus, based on where you are on the field, if the hard count doesn't work, take the penalty for delay of game and punt. At the very least you don't waste a timeout there.
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: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Statistically, there are proven facts that punting in that situation will lower your chance to win the game.
So no, it's not the right call. When you have a taller QB and a pro bowl center, you sneak the ball.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Exactly. that 5 yards was meaningless UNLESS you called it without having made the decision of whether you were going for it or not.
heck, even if I was on my own 30, I would still rather keep a timeout and sacrifice 5 yards of field position in that situation.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
We make an inordinate number of mistakes. This has to change, and the coaching staff has to change it. This is their biggest weakness.
Who could not agree with that?
Quote:
Our special teams are horrible, mainly because we make so damn many mistakes on teams.
But I think this is what you persevere through with such a young team. Remember years ago we used to have so many of Northcutt's long returns called back by penalty? Then we enjoyed a few years with Cribbs with a minimum of those calls. Now, with so many rookies on Special Teams we're getting called an inordinate amount of times for these same bone-headed penalties that take away the good field position Cribbs provides.
It's a young team. Yes, it's the coaches responsibility to coach this out of them. But you can't coach experience. That comes from playing. It will get better regardless who the coach is as these young guys gain the experience.
Quote:
We have been unable to run the ball with any consistency at all, and this is despite having excellent talent at RB.
This is coaching. Primarily the decision to feature the run game or not. We had a golden opportunity vs. the Colts to run against their limited DL and we didn't do it. Shurmur abandoned the run inexplicably. We had two series in a row where we went pass, pass, pass, punt. I seriously believe Hardesty and Obi could have been successful on the ground. It was a coaching mistake to not take advantage of a defense who were ripe to be run over.
I don't know if that was a game plan mistake or a game day mistake, but it was a mistake nonetheless.
Quote:
How many times have we jumped offsides on a 4th and short where it was obvious that the ball was never going to be snapped? It happened yesterday. I think that it's happened 3 or 4 times so far this year. That's horrible. It's coaching.
I don't think it is coaching at all. The players, even the rookies who are mainly responsible for these bone-headed mistakes, know better. We have DQ and others telling them to hold their water while the count is being called by the QB. Still, they jump!? It's a young team. And just like the dumb mistakes being made on kick returns these types of penalties are going to happen and will only lessen as they gain experience.
I could make a long list of what I think have been coaching mistakes. And they do attribute to the play on the field. But bone-headed mistakes, lack of execution and lack of experience are the main culprits in our being close but falling short.
It'll all work out no matter who the head coach is. But as I've said, I'd hate to see this thing blown-up before it even gets a chance.
In all reality this is Shurmur's first year as a Head Coach with a team who has had an offseason. And it is rife with rookies being depended upon to make the mistake-free, big plays on all three phases of the game.
If I had my druthers I would want Shurmur to give up play calling and focus on coaching up these young players and setting a high bar for discipline. Let Chilly call the plays exclusively.
This is not because I think Shurmur cannot call plays. It is because I don't think he can prepare for play calling AND prepare this young team in the way they need prepared. What they need is an elevated amount of "coaching-up" to offset their lack of experience.
Later, a couple of years from now, if Chilly gets an opportunity to be a Head Coach elsewhere Shurmur can re-assume play-calling with a much more disciplined, experienced team who will no longer need the special attention that they do now.
But alas, it's all for naught. I fully expect Shurmur to be gone and if we do not bring in another WCO Head Coach so will most of the coaching staff. If we change to a 3/4 the rest of the staff will be gone.
So our young guys, the ones who are left, who've worked so hard to get the schemes up to this point, can shift gears and learn another scheme.
It's the same old story with our Browns. No one ever gets the opportunity to finish to finish what they started. Look it up... any Browns coach who was given his 5 years had us in the playoffs. (Marty and Bill). Davis made it in under five. He's the only one unless you go all the way back to Bud Carson who inherited Marty's team and Blanton Collier who inherited Paul Brown's team.
If you haven't guessed, I really like this team. This is the highest level of speed and talent I've seen since our return. And although many of the are rookies and second year guys the upside is through the roof.
Their biggest problem is as you have said, an inordinate number of mistakes. With players this young it is not going to be miraculously cured by any coach. Playing time combined with special attention to disciplined play will take care of it so long as they don't have to pull up stakes and start over which only compounds the problems.
I hate that I see another rebuild so soon.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
... neither of those guarantee us a win.
You are right sir.
But I like our chances in both situations. We lost the Rats game by 7 points (Little's drop) and the Colts game by 4 (Gordon's drop). No one can call either game either way.
But even though I'm not a betting man, with a kicker who is money at 50 yards I'm betting we win both. We had opportunities for those kicks very late in both games.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Those statistics do not take into account our poor short-yardage performance.
Totally forgot about taking the penalty, yeah, if that was the plan they just shoulda taken the penalty. That MAY have been Weedon's call.
I'm not sold on Shurmur, but a lot of what we are seeing is rookie mistakes. IMO the key is if these get better over the rest of the season.
The decision to play TR when he must have obviously not been 100% bothers me more than the play-calling. Keeping Marecic in the game is just bizarre.
Speaking of bizarre, WTF was that timeout at the half with 1 second left? Nice to see someone else's coach do something really strange. But, they won and we didn't.
Coupla catches here and there and we are all singing a different tune, probably off-key cause we haven't really sung it in a while.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Quote:
Fort hangs onto that Vic pass in the endzone at the end of that game, Little catches that pass in the endzone vs Baltimore and Gordon makes that catch in the endzone yesterday and we have none of these conversations.
This is only true if you choose to ignore all the collective coaching blunders, the total lack of preparedness and the complete ineptitude in the play calling that put us in a position to need three big plays to have a chance at winning those games in the first place. It boils down to the lack total game preparedness, game planning in general and game day coaching, not simply the lack of execution of those three plays.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/hfMNC7T.jpg) "I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
All of the learning the rookies and 2nd year players have done will have to be re-learned in a new system.
Not if your guy Gruden is hired.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
All of the learning the rookies and 2nd year players have done will have to be re-learned in a new system.
Not if your guy Gruden is hired.
And that's not really true. A lot of the learning that is done, especially in the rookie year, is about the speed of the game, the way the NFL works, the way to prepare both mentally and physically... changing schemes isn't going to unlearn that. Yes they will have to learn new terminology and rework on timing of different routes, etc to some degree but the original adaptation to the NFL is done, and that's big.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
... neither of those guarantee us a win.
You are right sir.
But I like our chances in both situations. We lost the Rats game by 7 points (Little's drop) and the Colts game by 4 (Gordon's drop). No one can call either game either way.
But even though I'm not a betting man, with a kicker who is money at 50 yards I'm betting we win both. We had opportunities for those kicks very late in both games.
That's just the nature of the NFL. I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games and most/all of those could have been won by the other team if you could just take back or change one play. Make 3 tiny changes to Patriots games and they are 7-0. Ditto for the Eagles and they are 0-6
The NFL is set up for parity. That's why when a team loses 17 out of 20 games and several of those losses were directly influenced by coaching decisions/blunders, the coach has to go. We will be at a disadvantage in every game we play because our coach doesn't understand game situations. Think about that for a minute.
The flip side of that would be Belichick and the Patriots, who aggressively pursue every edge they can and I think their track record speaks for itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
It boils down to the lack total game preparedness, game planning in general and game day coaching, not simply the lack of execution of those three plays.
I don't choose to ignore those things. But I do question that there is a "lack of total game preparedness" and game planning in general. I'll give you lack of game day coaching although I don't see any of these as severely lacking so much as you apparently do as do some others.
As has been discussed on here before, many want the fix to be easy and the easiest fix is to fix the blame on one thing/person and make that responsible for falling short.
I don't think it's as simple as just the Head Coach nor do I think it's a combination of Shurmur and the staff, (of whom has vast, successful experience in the very same coaching qualities as they are being accused of lacking). This is not an entire coaching staff of "first-timers" as we've had here before.
What makes them seem unprepared is their youthful mistakes because there are so many of them. What looks like a lack of game planning is a lack of execution. What looks like a lack of game day coaching is a lack of game day coaching, but even that is not so severe as it is being portrayed.
Many things are exaggerated when the team is losing. The thing that is exaggerated the most is the easy fix, (i.e. fire the coach).
Good God, the man has 7 games as a Head Coach with a team who has had an offseason and a boatload of rookies expected to overachieve at this point of their careers. Even at that, I believe he should give up play-calling and focus on "coaching up" the young guys in their discipline.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
That's just the nature of the NFL. I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games
Well, out of 104 NFL games this year, 58 were decided by 7 or fewer points.. that's more than half. (31 of those 58 were actually decided by 3 or less)
What's funny is that you would expect there to be fewer as the margin of victory grew, but that's not the case... In the 8-14 range 14 games were decided.. in the 15-21 range 16 games were decided and in the over 21 range, 16 games were decided.... so if you don't keep it within a touchdown, you have just as good a chance of getting blown out. 
4 of our 6 losses were in the 7 or less category, the other 2 were in the 8 to 14 range.. our win was also in the 8-14 range... so we don't get blown out.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Quote:
I do question that there is a "lack of total game preparedness" and game planning in general.
I know it looks like piling on, and it seems easy at this juncture. I thought we had turned a corner with the win against the Bengals, and wanted to see success through the end of the season to possibly garner another year without change. However, it's very clear there has been and continues to be extreme shortcomings on game day preparations and half time adjustment.
Regardless of his time with the team, he's had plenty of time, (a week between games,) to get ready for the next team, but his record of failure on the first and second drives, when he's supposed to have his first 10-15 plays scripted, and his equally abysmal 3rd quarter record, when he's supposed to have made half time adjustment clearly point to the fact that he is not prepared well enough to score on those early 1st & 3rd quarter drives. He may in fact work hard preparing, but shows up completely unprepared to win regardless.
There may be issues with execution, we see that constantly, the mistakes & penalties do hurt us. But it is up to the coach to make sure those are kept to a minimum, and it's also up to the coach to put young players in a position to maximize their success. That's not happening. It's as simple as not calling a deep sideline route on third down with a rookie QB & WR when you only need six yards. You have a veteran TE, you go to him across the middle where he can open himself to the QB, present a target and make the catch. That's fundamental and just one minor example. Throwing when you should be running. An inability to manage the clock with 23 years of coaching experience! In total, it's simply ridiculous.
Do I want to go through a new coaching change? Hell no. Do I want Shurmur here next year? Absolutely not. The sad fact is, he should have never been hired to begin with. He's in over his head, and I think he's checked out. I know he battled. But it wasn't good enough.
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
We will be at a disadvantage in every game we play because our coach doesn't understand game situations. Think about that for a minute.
Second guessing a coaching decision is the easiest thing in the world to do when the decision doesn't work out. Think about that for a minute.
Shurmur got blasted to no end for taking TR out of a 3rd and 1 play choosing instead to pass and it failed. Everybody knew that's a coaching mistake. Then, in a later game, he has TR run on 3rd and 1 and it fails. Now what?!
Bad decision doesn't work/good decision doesn't work, which one is responsible for losing the game, the good decision in that game or the bad decision in the other one?
I don't hold the opinion that Shurmur doesn't make bad coaching decisions at times. It irks the hell outta me. Just that his decisions are not what causes us to fall short in all these losses. Of course they don't always put us in the best position to succeed which is his job. But neither does throwing pick-sixes and dropping balls, which doesn't put us in the best position to win games either which is their jobs.
Wins are team wins and loses are team loses. Fort didn't lose that game when he failed to make the interception in the Eagles game. Neither did Little or Gordon lose those games by failing to make those sure TD catches. There were plenty of other opportunities throughout the game to make successful plays and/or to not make mistakes that could have resulted in a very different outcome.
To attempt to squarely place blame on any one aspect be it a player, a coach, a play call, a mistake or any other one aspect is simplifying it way too much. The team has to develop and play like a team and with the number of rookies and second-year guys we have on this team to expect them, coaching included, to run like a well-oiled machine is expecting too much.
Quote:
I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games and most/all of those could have been won by the other team if you could just take back or change one play. Make 3 tiny changes to Patriots games and they are 7-0. Ditto for the Eagles and they are 0-6
True that. But with our young team, who makes a ton of mistakes, is still a part of that parity mistakes included. Give these same players and staff another lousy year of experience to cut back on the shear number of mistakes and we should, according to the rules of parity, be able to play and keep up with the big boys consistantly.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
It's as simple as not calling a deep sideline route on third down with a rookie QB & WR when you only need six yards. You have a veteran TE, you go to him across the middle where he can open himself to the QB, present a target and make the catch. That's fundamental and just one minor example. Throwing when you should be running. An inability to manage the clock with 23 years of coaching experience! In total, it's simply ridiculous.
In your first example of the deep sideline route, there are other options in that play. The QB is to take that if it's there and if not he's to check down to maybe that TE or another, shorter route that is open. Guys are getting open. Some of those plays that look like a bad play call is a rookie QB learning that in the pros he can't make some of those passes that he so easily made last year in college. That's where his earlier pick-sixes came from. The interceptions in the Eagles game were the most glaring example of that. Weeden is getting much better so he seems to be learning from his mistakes, but I think he still, too often, is gun slinging by going for the big play because he trusts his arm.
"Throwing when you should be running" I'll give you that but not so much as an in game play call but as in an abandonment of the running game as we saw against the Colts. Pass, pass, pass, punt in two series in a row had me pulling my hair out when we were facing a team with a makeshift DL who were ripe for the taking with Hardesty and Obi.
The clock thing should never happen but all coaches make suspect clock management mistakes. Maybe Shurmur makes a greater percentage of them, I don't really know as I don't see that many games. But every week you see it on ESPN of these sorts of gaffs. How it happens I don't know. Maybe there's too much going on at a specific moment that overwhelms them. But it's not just Shurmur.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
... so we don't get blown out.
That is one reason, even considering the youth of this team and the inordinate number of mistakes they are making, that we still don't get blown out is so encouraging to me.
Beyond that, if we were a veteran team making these mistakes I'd be highly discouraged and wouldn't see a fix for it other than a coaching change. But since our team is so dang young I know it's only their youth and inexperience contributing to all the mistakes and that will primarily take care of itself with playing time and some well-aimed coaching up.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Do you advocate sticking with Shurmur and the current coaching staff? If so, what is it about him that instills your confidence?
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
We will be at a disadvantage in every game we play because our coach doesn't understand game situations. Think about that for a minute.
Second guessing a coaching decision is the easiest thing in the world to do when the decision doesn't work out. Think about that for a minute.
nah.. that is the "if it works it was a good call, if it doesn't work it was a bad call" archaic type thinking that I can't stand. If our coach would have went for it and got stuffed I absolutely 100% would have defended it as the right decision.
Coaching decisions can and often should be judged without considering the actual result. It was a boneheaded/scared/bizarre decision that considerably lowered the team's probability to win, regardless of what happened after. Simple as that. Come on..... you know this.
Quote:
Shurmur got blasted to no end for taking TR out of a 3rd and 1 play choosing instead to pass and it failed. Everybody knew that's a coaching mistake. Then, in a later game, he has TR run on 3rd and 1 and it fails. Now what?!
Bad decision doesn't work/good decision doesn't work, which one is responsible for losing the game, the good decision in that game or the bad decision in the other one?
I don't hold the opinion that Shurmur doesn't make bad coaching decisions at times. It irks the hell outta me. Just that his decisions are not what causes us to fall short in all these losses. Of course they don't always put us in the best position to succeed which is his job. But neither does throwing pick-sixes and dropping balls, which doesn't put us in the best position to win games either which is their jobs.
Wins are team wins and loses are team loses. Fort didn't lose that game when he failed to make the interception in the Eagles game. Neither did Little or Gordon lose those games by failing to make those sure TD catches. There were plenty of other opportunities throughout the game to make successful plays and/or to not make mistakes that could have resulted in a very different outcome.
To attempt to squarely place blame on any one aspect be it a player, a coach, a play call, a mistake or any other one aspect is simplifying it way too much. The team has to develop and play like a team and with the number of rookies and second-year guys we have on this team to expect them, coaching included, to run like a well-oiled machine is expecting too much.
I completely agree with you. The team is heading in the right direction but there's plenty of blame to go around, and a lot of it isn't the head coach's fault. I get it 
Honestly though he seems like a good enough guy but as a head coach he is woefully underqualified, doesn't have many particularly strong attributes (QB development has been good though, from now back through his time with STL/PHI), but has plenty of weaknesses and makes so many consistently bad decisions that he would be easy to hire someone better.
Quote:
I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games and most/all of those could have been won by the other team if you could just take back or change one play. Make 3 tiny changes to Patriots games and they are 7-0. Ditto for the Eagles and they are 0-6
Quote:
True that. But with our young team, who makes a ton of mistakes, is still a part of that parity mistakes included. Give these same players and staff another lousy year of experience to cut back on the shear number of mistakes and we should, according to the rules of parity, be able to play and keep up with the big boys consistantly.
This Browns team has the potential to be very good very soon. It's crazy how much young talent has been added in recent years... with high draft picks every round every year, the haul from the Julio trade, and borrowing the 2nd rounder from next year. It's pretty crazy actually.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
This Browns team has the potential to be very good very soon. It's crazy how much young talent has been added in recent years... with high draft picks every round every year, the haul from the Julio trade, and borrowing the 2nd rounder from next year. It's pretty crazy actually.
Just to touch on this a little more, I really don't think a coaching change is as disruptive as it's made out to be, as long as it's not also a philosophy change. Plenty of coaches come in and have success in year 1 or year 2.
e.g. Belichick, Rex Ryan, both Harbaughs, Tomlin, John Fox, Mike Smith, Sean Payton, Jeff Fisher, and others have all had varying degrees of success soon after taking over a team. I just hope we stick with the same general philosophies, especially style of defense (fast/athletic) which I think is perfect for the modern, pass happy NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
I've put some thought into this, and a few things I've read today (on here, on other sites) have given me a hairbrained idea. If Shurmer loses both before the bye, can him now. Either our DC or OC are certainly qualified to run a team for the remainder of the year. However, if Banner and Haslem are ok with it, offer the position to Holmgren for the remainder of the year. He said a lot today ( link ) that makes me think he might be open to it (the question being, would he really be open to it and accept that "demotion"?) I don't think there'd be much argument that he's a good coach. He knows the players, he knows the system...at best he sparks the team to play better and is our coach moving forward...and at worst he does no better than what we have now and we start over next year anyway. Crazy? Yes. Feasible? Not sure, but if Banner, Haslem, and Holmgren were all ok with it, I'd much prefer it to what we have as a head coach today. Flame away...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Quote:
would he really be open to it and accept that "demotion"?
Do you mean would he be open to working his ass off for 80 hours a week after sitting on his ass in cushy chair making eight million a year doing nothing?
Um... let me think about it.
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Do you advocate sticking with Shurmur and the current coaching staff? If so, what is it about him that instills your confidence?
I can more easily tell you what I don't want and that is to replace Shurmur and the current coaching staff.
I think this is one of the best, most experienced coaching staffs, as a whole, that we're likely to put together for a long time. They are all of the same philosophy and on the same page, both sides of the ball, as this team is ever going to assemble.
Gone are the staffs full of first-timers, first time GM, first time HC, first time OC, first time DC. God we've lived through that and died by it.
I think all this group needs, Heckert included, is to be given the time to finish what they started. Many on here, even the strong Shurmur haters, like this team and the direction they're headed as well as seeing great potential and seeing that potential being realized sooner rather than later.
Let's not forget, Shurmur has played a major part in that. I think that gets overlooked.
To better answer your question more to your satisfaction, I'd be willing to change out Shurmur if it didn't mean the wholesale changing out of the rest of the staff.
Has that ever happened before? I don't know.
What I do know is that this entire group, Holmgren included, has this team at this juncture and it ain't bad at all. If anyone thinks the Head Coach is the one who is causing us to fall short every time and wants him gone then all the other coaches, assistants and even the GM will very likely be gone as well. (You know, the coaches, assistants and the GM who've brought this team to this juncture).
To keep all this together I'd be willing to let Shurmur learn on the job. I'd like him to give up play-calling duties and focus more on team discipline and whatever else he's contributed that has this team at the level they are. And they are at a high level considering their youth.
I love the plan, (build through the draft/ignore FA until a solid core is developed). The plan seems to be working to this point. I'd hate to see it fall away now just because we've lost a lot of games during the rebuild and development while blaming it all on the Head Coach.
I don't even know if I answered your question but I tried.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,576
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,576 |
dub'
I think you make excellent points. I have a hard time seeing past my dislike of Shurmer, but I think your post is spot on.
My only comment is that, Shurmer got the chance to give up playcalling when they hired Chilly. They hired an extremely experienced OC, and he's still calling plays. I think that ship has sailed.
Your points about the staff are spot on. I think, for the most part, we have an excellent staff. First and foremost, Heckert has done a phenomenal job. I think, overall, Jauron has done a good job (inconsistent, though).
Last edited by oobernoober; 10/23/12 04:23 PM.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
dub'
I think you make excellent points. I have a hard time seeing past my dislike of Shurmer, but I think your post is spot on.
My only comment is that, Shurmer got the chance to give up playcalling when they hired Chilly. They hired an extremely experienced OC, and he's still calling plays. I think that ship has sailed.
So, you throw the baby out with the bath water rather than just trying to learn from a mistake and correct what is already in place?
Ok.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,576
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,576 |
I edited my post after you responded.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
He's in over his head, and I think he's checked out.
He's not checked out. He just doesn't know what to do. He is actually trying, he is just incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Do you advocate sticking with Shurmur and the current coaching staff? If so, what is it about him that instills your confidence?
I would not be all that upset if we gave the whole staff one more year.. I would like to see Pat give up the playcalling though...
The question could be turned around though.. because when people advocating getting rid of Shurmur, they are comparing him to an unknown... and people have this unknown built up to be something better than Shurmur, which may or may not happen. It's like those election polls, "Would you vote for Obama or an unknown Republican?" Well if I get to fabricate a nice conservative Republican in my mind with all of the traits I want him to have then of course I would vote for that guy....
So people need to stop thinking about Gruden or Cowher or whoever their coach of choice is and start thinking that it might be the DC from the 49ers or the OC from the Giants or somebody they have never heard of who has never been a HC before... because that is far more likely... So you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago.. Is it possible that the guy turns into Jim Harbaugh and we instantly become an 11 win team? Yea, I guess it's possible but it's far more likely that we watch the new guy go through a couple years of growing pains just like Shurmur has.... so we can get to where we are now....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Quote:
I don't even know if I answered your question but I tried.
Fair and thorough. In a sense, I agree with you. I don't want to start over. I appreciate, for the most part, the job the coaching staff has done. I see us moving in the right direction. I think we are several pieces away from having a very good team. Shurmur would have to relinquish play calling duties to continue as HC. But honestly, I don't see that happening. If he gets fired, the whole coaching staff goes. I can only hope the next staff can do a better job of winning. The one thing they will have going for them that none of the other regimes had is a legitimate QB and a core roster of young talented players. Maybe that's the missing piece now, a solid coaching staff that can win. If Shurmur starts winning, maybe he stays. I just don't know that he can do that. He should have won the Colts game. If there was ever a game that was certainly winnable, but was lost primarily by coaching, this was it. We'll know soon enough where we stand.
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Quote:
you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago.
No, the new guys gets an owner who cares, a CEO who knows his job, a talented QB, a roster with decent talent, a draft with high picks including a FA period to round out a talented roster, and an entire off season to prepare. Big difference.
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I would not be all that upset if we gave the whole staff one more year.. I would like to see Pat give up the playcalling though...
we tried that once with Mangini. either Haslam/Banner are married to this FO & Staff or they should replace them. I don't think there is any gray area on this one. Once they make their decision, their first BIG decision as controlling interests of the Browns is in the books.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Right.
I would say Holmgren's biggest failure was letting Mangini stay. He let what he thought was right (letting Mangini stay because he won four straight games) get in the way of the actual right decision.
If Haslam/Banner make the determination that Heckert and Shurmur are the long term answer at general manager and head coach, then they should stay. If they aren't the long term answer, they need to go.
Banner should have a pretty good understanding on how Heckert and Shurmur operate from his prior experiences with them and the system they learned from.
All signs point to Haslam and Banners' minds already made up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
Quote:
Right.
I would say Holmgren's biggest failure was letting Mangini stay. He let what he thought was right (letting Mangini stay because he won four straight games) get in the way of the actual right decision.
If Haslam/Banner make the determination that Heckert and Shurmur are the long term answer at general manager and head coach, then they should stay. If they aren't the long term answer, they need to go.
Banner should have a pretty good understanding on how Heckert and Shurmur operate from his prior experiences with them and the system they learned from.
All signs point to Haslam and Banners' minds already made up.
I agree with you pretty much except for the part where u said Holmgren should have let Gini go immediately... I Holmgren did it the right way. Who's to say that after firing Gini he goes to head coach another team and they turn out to win a Super Bowl.. Then he would have looked like an idiot for letting him go w/out seeing for himself what type of coach he was.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago.
No, the new guys gets an owner who cares, a CEO who knows his job, a talented QB, a roster with decent talent, a draft with high picks including a FA period to round out a talented roster, and an entire off season to prepare. Big difference.
And none of that guarantees that he is going to be able to reduce penalties, make the right play calls, use his timeouts properly or his challenges.. none of it.
Basically he has all of the same stuff going into next season that Shurmur has... only probably 2 less years of experience.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
We have the benefit of hindsight. It wasn't the right move.
I'm mostly using that (Holmgren keeping Mangini) as a reason why the new ownership shouldn't hold on to Shurmur (if it is determined he isn't the long term solution).
We have seen that you should get the guys you want in place as quickly as possible. If you keep guys around for the wrong reasons it only results in a wasted year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
Yea.. at least Haslam came in midseason, and will get a feel for him. I doubt he is retained though..
I just don't know who would turn this team around coaching wise. From a roster standpoint, we are stocking up on talent (well kinda), so hopefully it will be easier for the next guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
Quote:
Quote:
would he really be open to it and accept that "demotion"?
Do you mean would he be open to working his ass off for 80 hours a week after sitting on his ass in cushy chair making eight million a year doing nothing?
Um... let me think about it.
Since you obviously didn't read the article, let me help you.
Quote:
Asked if he has one more coaching stint in him, Holmgren, 64, said, "I don't know. I do miss the coaching part.''
Quote:
Holmgren also said he'd like to stick around here for the rest of the season if it feels right with new owner Jimmy Haslam and CEO Joe Banner in the building.
"We'll take it one day at a time and see how it goes,'' he said. "I'll focus on the football side now (and not the business side). I want to feel like I'm contributing. I think I can help a little.''
Quote:
"I want to feel like I'm contributing. My emphasis will be on the football side. I don't have to do the business side of it anymore. If I could help one player or one coach be a little better and I feel like I'm contributing, that could happen."
He's open to coaching, and will be working on the football side of things, not the business side of things the rest of the season. So, if the HC position were to become available, why not do it in a low pressure situation as an interim (with the potential to be extended)? As well, if he's going to go back to coaching, he knows the staff, the players, and both offensive and defensive systems we have in place. If he were to go to Dallas, Philly, Carolina, KC, etc... he'd have to start all over - higher pressure.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum How Many Wins Will it Take to Save
Shurmur's Job?
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)