DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Marc Trestman

For right now it looks like a Manziel, who isn't unprepared, isn't somewhat out of shape, who has received a lot of first team reps, who hopefully gets rid of his posse and starts living the life of a professional quarterback, that is the FO's option other than Hoyer that we are looking at.

Whether we like it or not.

When you think your the smartest guy in the room, and you try to act like it, problems seem to occur.

Smartest guy in the room tends to outthink himself.

The genius of coaching is taking the difficult and making it very simple.

Smartest guy in the room often has a hard time doing that. They have to look smarter. So, they alienate and confuse people with their next brilliant idea. They think, and think, and once again, outthink themselves.

When Shanahan was with the Redskins it seems he had a serious case of declaring himself the smartest guy in the room. But, with all those X's and O's you still don't have a guy who played in the NFL and knows what it takes to execute all his brilliant strategies.

I don't think its coincidence that his only non-disaster, real success was when he was younger (knew less and wasn't quite as brilliant) with the Texans.

ps.
We were 27th in scoring.

He should go back to the CFL where he was successful.

Can't answer for anyone else, but that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy...

Frankly, I'm not sure Manziel has it in him to straighten up and fly right. I hope so because at this point, we really don't know if we have anyone else.

Not really.

You'd have Connor Shaw, he'd be a better option.

Not sure who will or won't be a free agent, but it's hard to imagine there wouldn't be plenty of better options on the market scrap heap- Matt Schaub, Colt McCoy, Ryan Fitzpatrick types.

They're grim options, sure, but it's not like we're stuck with starting Manziel.

Sorry, but GRIM isn't strong enough. Schaub, McCoy and Fitzpatrick aren't any better than Hoyer. In fact I think Hoyer might be better than any of them.

I was about to say, "and he knows the offense" but that doesn't fit anymore LOL We don't know what the Offense is going to be next season.

Man, there were times this year where I honestly thought damn, we have an Offense that nobody better overlook. Just about then, they would collapse.

anyway, here is the list of current FA's that I'm aware of

2015 NFL Free Agents

Top Quarterbacks

Mark Sanchez - [Philadelphia] - There isn't much talent available at the quarterback position in this year's free agent class and Mark Sanchez might be the best. Sanchez came on to replace injured Nick Foles as the starter for the Eagles. His performance was up and down and he's unlikly to be the starter in Philadelphia next season. A quarterback needy team could take a chance on Sanchez as a starter, but he's most likely to be a backup in 2015.

Brian Hoyer - [Cleveland] - After a solid start in Cleveland in 2014, Hoyer really struggled to finish out the season. He was benched in week 15 and replaced with Manzeil. Look for Hoyer to sign on as a back up with another team in 2015

Michael Vick - [New York Jets] Vick spent most of 2014 as Geno Smith's back up. He played in a handful of games and didn't do anything to show that he is capable of still being a starting NFL QB. Vick will likely be a back up for a couple more years before retiring.

Matt Flynn - Green Bay
Matt Moore - Miami
Austin Davis - St. Louis
Shaun Hill - St. Louis
Jake Locker - Tenneessee
Colt McCoy - Washington

I didn't see Schaub or Fitzpatrick on the list.

Nothing there excites me... Except maybe Hoyer.

I would take Hoyer over all of them, as well. And I didn't necessarily mean those names specifically (hences the'types')

However, the original poster's thesis was that if we can't bring back Hoyer, Manziel is the next best option.

If someone asked 'If we don't resign Hoyer, who would be the next best option?', 'Brian Hoyer' wouldn't be a suitable answer.

This is hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole.

Connor Shaw is not a professional quarterback and doesn't belong on a professional football field.

Even over Manziel.

I would take Connor Shaw over Johnny Manziel any day of the week at this point. At least Shaw took his preparation seriously all year. Shaw looked 10x more confident, poised and prepared in his game against Baltimore than Manziel did in the 6-quarters he played in...

With that being said, I don't think Shaw is a viable long term option either simply because his arm strength looked absolutely terrible against the Ravens...

I wouldn't mind re-signing Brian Hoyer, but he's limited to what he can do...

I think the best thing this team can do is to trade for Sam Bradford or Nick Foles to come in and compete with Manziel.

I do think Mark Sanchez or Jake Locker could be solid signings in free agency. Locker is actually really intriguing. He's been productive the last two years when healthy. He has a big arm, he's really mobile for his size. Keep him healthy and who knows?

I'm 110% in favor of drafting Bryce Petty, the only QB I'd want from this years class. He won me over in the Cotton Bowl last weekend. 6'3, 229 lbs, good size. He has a quick release, very accurate and confident and he was able to read the field, not just one receiver.

I think the most likely scenario is to just sign a free agent veteran QB to compete with Manziel at this point, might end up being Brian Hoyer, who knows....

This is how I feel.. based on what I saw on the field this year..

Keep Hoyer..
Keep Shaw..
Talk to Az about a trade.. Gordon and Manziel for Fitzgerald... I would even throw in a 6th round pick..

Arizona needs a QB.. Manziel plays the position ( not saying he is an NFL QB ) and they need to get rid of Fitzgerald's contract.. The Browns have cap space.. and can handle the contract. The Browns can also fill AZ's need for a talented WR ( even though Gordon is a Problem child ) to replace Fitzgerald. A Pro Bowler for a Pro Bowler... and the change of scenery may be good for all involved.

Everyone may be glad I'm not the GM.. but to me.. problems are solved.. time to move on..

Johnny Manziel isn't a professional quarterback who belongs on a professional football field, either.

And, no, it's not hyperbole. If we were faced with the option of going into next season with either Shaw or Manziel, I would most certainly choose Shaw. I doubt I'm alone in that.

With that said, there is no chance that we would sit on our hands to the point where those two were our only options.

The big problem with the offense was Jay Cutler, despite his 3800 yards. Forte had over 1800 yards from scrimmage. Jeffery, Bennett and a banged up Marshall had over 2700 rec yards. They were 2nd in the league in TDs in the red zone. But... Cutler continued his long history of stupid mistakes, usually when they could hurt the team the most. By week 7 Marshall was calling him out in the locker room after the game and it all went downhill from there. At that point they were 0-4 when he throws a pick, which leads to the next point...

The defense could stop NOBODY. Historically BAD. How does it feel as an offense to know you have to score 30 every week to have a chance? Turn the tables - how does it feel as the opposing D to know you can play loose and pin your ears back because your offense is starting the game with 28 on the board?

From an offensive standpoint, Trestman has had success on the offensive side of the ball everywhere he has gone, it's easier to just copy and past from wikipedia...

"In Cleveland he again coached Kosar and the team finished 10–6 and made the playoffs. His promotion to offensive coordinator in 1989 was made before the team named Bud Carson as Marty Schottenheimer's successor as head coach. Kosar passed for 3,533 yards and 18 TDs that season, while wide receiver Webster Slaughter had a franchise record 1,236 receiving yards. Trestman was dismissed after the Browns' third loss in the AFC Championship game in four years, primarily due to his strained relationship with Carson.

In 1990, Trestman returned to Minnesota as quarterbacks coach for the Vikings. He spent two years there and then left coaching for three years, and worked in the municipal bond sale during that timespan.

He returned to the NFL in 1995 as quarterbacks coach and offensive coordinator with San Francisco, where he served in that capacity through 1996. The first year he was in San Francisco, the team led the NFL with 457 points scored, 644 pass attempts and 4,779 passing yards.

Trestman joined the Detroit Lions as quarterbacks coach in 1997. That year Lions quarterback Scott Mitchell passed for 3,484 yards, fourth most in team history.

In 1998 he was with the Arizona Cardinals as quarterbacks coach and offensive coordinator. That year quarterback Jake Plummer threw for 3,737 yards, and the Cardinals made the playoffs for the first time since 1982 and won their first post season game in 51 years.

He next went to the Oakland Raiders in 2001 as the quarterbacks coach. In 2002 he was promoted to offensive coordinator and the Raiders led the NFL in total offense with 389.8 yards per game and passing yards with 279.7 per game. Under Trestman's guidance, Raiders QB Rich Gannon won the 2002 NFL MVP award as the Raiders reached Super Bowl XXXVII, losing to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers."

Even last year, Cutler out with an injury, in comes...
Josh McCown 224/149 66.5 1829 13TD 1INT 109.0

I would love to have Marc here, he is historically EXCELLENT with QBs and passing offense. Marc has always been a winner, this debacle in Chicago should have him chomping at the bit to prove it true - again.

Damn Fate

You keep peeing on people's agendas and your gonna suffer the age ol rath of the board.

Nice job

Still stuck on Hoyer. Might be making some of the offensive stuff tougher than it is. The mix needs to change probably, but not selling the farm for a fresh handful in the draft for another QB is attractive.

Run the offense you understand. Not sure the last playbook was it. Don't believe it mattered what you hand Manziel.

LOL.........it's only an agenda if someone doesn't agree w/you.

As previously staed by a few posters, this was discussed here when Shanahan was hired. Thus, there should be no surprise. Seems to me the only way to get some degree of continuity at the OC position is to either hire a young guy who needs several years of experience on his resume before moving up, or, hire a veteran OC or ex-HC who has no amibition to further pursue an HC position...

Seems to me you wouldn't want an OC with no ambition or aspiration to being a HC. What I'd do once I found a guy I like is offer a 3 year contract for enough money to make it attractive, along with the clear understanding that they would not be released from that contract to pursue other jobs. Three years should certainly be enough time for your OC to train an heir-apparent to replace them once they complete their contract. That would be how you get "continuity".

To establish offensive continuity, the Browns need an OC who will be here long enough to establish an offensive system that remains the same for 5 years

i agree with that mac but as you said as they show promise another team offers them a sweeter gig.
for continuity i think of the steelers. they're always changing coordinators it seems but they still play like the steelers almost every single year. you never here of disfunction with them.
i think a year or so ago i heard rooney say that he wanted to go back to being a running team and that was it. they went back to running the ball more.
continuity is not just keeping the same coaches it's keeping the same style of winning football no matter who's coaching it.

So you're OK with 3 years as defining "continuity"? (Yes, I do realize that is a vast improvement over our track record).

Not sure what you mean by "even over Manziel" I assume you mean that Manziel is better than Shaw.

Truth be told, he played better than Manziel. So doesn't it follow that Manziel doesn't belong in the NFL either?

It's the risk you always take when hiring anyone for any position. In or out of the NFL.

If they are good at what they do, someone will recognize it and want to hire them away. No way to avoid it. I mean, I guess you can throw money at them.. but a 5 million a year OC? I don't know if that happens.. ever.

I don't think that would work anyway. If a guy wants to be a head coach, the money won't make him stay...

Like I said, I'd expect an assistant to be in place that could continue the same scheme / system. There's also no reason why you couldn't extend a successful OC after the 3 year contract was up, if there were no HC openings available to lure him away. If you look at successful franchises - say, New England - they have had turnover in OC's, but still kept a pretty consistent scheme in place. Continuity doesn't mean you don't evolve, imo it means you maintain a certain core, or base approach that gets altered year-to-year to match your talent.

I understand and agree with that, Dave. In NE's case, I expect the continuity is due to the influence/power of BB...

I disagree. Pettine needed or needs a good OC because of his lacking skill set on offense. He has two options. He can hire an up and coming OC looking for a HC job, or he can hire an old veteran who is looking for one last hurrah before retiring.

In case of the Browns, they are mostly young and more likely respond to an up and coming OC. Pettine being a young HC it also makes sense establishing something with new ideas.

I believe the Browns are fine. When Haslam hired Pettine and Farmer, he laid down guidelines what he wanted the team to look like. As long as he stays within the schemes hiring coaches that fit getting players who perform well in it I think construction of this team can continue.

In years past, Browns were changing from a 3-4 to 4-3 Perkins to a WCO. Team become a potpourri of talent that couldn't gel. New coach purge and and taking two or three years to get things established. Fans wonder why team couldn't win. As long as Haslam doesn't deviate from the foundation. I think the Browns can mover forward.

Well stated, bugs. I'm much of the same thinking. I see no dysfunctionality and no significant turmoil outside that which is to be expected in any organization...

Wouldn't Pettine's lack of experience, especially as on OC play well toward getting a good OC here - basically thinking that they would be promoted once Pettine gets let go?

From a continuity standpoint, if you had a great OC and a decent HC, when you have a down year or so, the HC gets booted and you promote the OC..that would 'seem' to be the best way to do if - at least if I was an OC.

I agree, I didn't like the play calling with Manziel at all. And the one play I can't get my head around is the one Manziel was hurt on. What OC in their right mind runs a QB sweep in the NFL. No QB in the NFL could pull that off as fast as linebackers are at this level. Even in college they always have a halfback option, Shanny is not that stupid. If I were in the owners booth I think I would have texted him as well asking "ARE YOU INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO GET OUR QB KILLED??"

Good point. If I was Pettine, I can't worry setting myself up not to be replaced by one of my hires. In the end if I don't succeed, I'm gone. It is best to get the right people to do the job. As a HC, I want my subordinates getting promotions elsewhere. It means I know how to get talent and my team is winning.

As for continuity, I think that comes more from ownership. Have a plan and build from it. If plan is sound, it doesn't matter who is coaching. Look at the winning teams today.

I agree Eotab, it was a curious move to say the least. It was a lot like trying to replace Mack, instead of having two players in new roles it was determined that the best route was to leave Greco at guard and just deal with a new center.

Similarly, with the Cincy game. Changing QB's is a huge adjustment by itself, let alone changing the scheme on top of it. I got splinters scratching my head on that one. Perhaps Shannahan was purposely exposing Manziel as the clown he has shown himself to be?

There are reports that Rex Ryan and Marc Trestman are trying to package themselves together. Wherever Rex goes, Trestman goes. I am not sad about that.

Somewhere a QB just woke up in a cold sweat.

The rumor is that Rex prefers San Francisco. That means Kaepernick. I picture Rex in Atlanta, that means Matt Ryan. We shall see.

A lot of really good coaching vacancies this year. Usually the landscape is a dumpster fire. I wouldn't feel overwhelmed going into SF or ATL and working with what's there.

HA!

Well played

This is actually one of the big reasons why I like Trestman... He's not "that guy". His core belief is to stay somewhere and get the job done and his entire career has been a story of that attitude being thwarted because of head cases, bad situations or just circumstances beyond control.

In his book "Perseverance: Life Lessons on Leadership and Teamwork", he takes a very introspective look at the inner-workings of the business of "football" and the elephant in the room that so many ignore - continuity. Believe me, it's not a "poor me" serenade about getting screwed over or anything like that, just a man that is dumbfounded at how organizations commonly turn things inside out looking for the next "great savior".

He would have NEVER left the CFL for anything less than a HC gig in the NFL - he was treated like a god there. Now that the bridge has burned, this is a golden opportunity for someone to hire him to do what he does best... If nothing else, in the name of "continuity" lol.

I think you need to develop your system and no matter who we bring in, they will be coming in to run our system. I think that system, that philosophy is just as important as continuity in the personnel. Find guys that fit what you want to do. Find coaches that share that philosophy. What has really held us back is we havent been just changing coaches we have been going from vertical stretch to wco to vertical stretch to a run based wco. bend dont break 4-3, blitz happy 3-4, structured press 3-4.

You just cant keep doing that. You can add a little to avoid predictable but at some point u need your core beliefs.

So your proposal is not to go after the most talented OC, but the most talented candidate that runs a very similar, or the same system as Shanahan ran? I'm not saying your approach is flawed, but with only one season with Shanahan, is that the route they will follow?

I mean some seem to think that the system Shanahan ran was too complicated. The verbiage was too varied and made it a hard system for many to grasp. So IMO, they will weigh what would be lost from losing the continuity from one season verses going forward with a simpler, less complicated system that will make it easier to transition FA's and rookies with the high turnover in the current NFL environment.

i believe any system will work if you have the right personel.
the question in my mind is do we want a system for a traditional QB or a system to fit manziel? i say manziel specifically because of the draft pick we used.
pick any system, i don't care. just make sure your backup QB's can run the same thing.
that way you don't have to draw up new plays in mid season.