http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/09/11...1K79DA.facebookCLEVELAND (92.3 The Fan) – It appears that Jimmy Haslam III will have a little more time to spend on the Cleveland Browns.
Haslam is stepping down as CEO of Pilot Flying J and will be replaced by PepsiCo Inc. President John Compton.
Compton’s departure from PepsiCo was announced Tuesday by the company.
“I have deep and personal ties to Tennessee, and my family’s plan all along has been to return to Tennessee at some point,” Compton said in a statement released by PepsiCo. “It isn’t often that the opportunity arises to run one of America’s largest private companies, and this new opportunity was a once in a lifetime chance to do so. This is something I just had to do.”
Pilot Flying J is based in Knoxville, Tenn., and operates a chain of truck stops in the United States and Canada that generates more than $30 billion in revenue.
Haslam has served as CEO of Pilot Flying J since 1994 and will become chairman of Pilot Flying J and Maxum Petroleum the company said.
His father, Jim Haslam, who founded the company in 1958, was given the title of founder and chairman emeritus.
Haslam agreed to purchase the Browns from Randy Lerner and the Lerner Trust for $1 billion on Aug. 9 and was introduced in Cleveland the next day.
Haslam will reportedly acquire a 70 percent controlling interest in the Browns while Lerner retains 30 percent of the team for 4 years following the closing of the sale.
It is believed that Lerner is retaining a minority stake in the team while he pays off existing debts, including to former executives and coaches.
NFL owners are expected to approve the sale of the Browns to Haslam Oct. 16-17 in Chicago.
Since the sale was announced and Haslam was introduced, he has been very visible around the team and busy meeting with fellow NFL owners to learn the business of football.
The move by Haslam, who said that he plans to spend time in Tennessee as well as Cleveland, will likely free him up to become more intimately involved with the Browns.
This man is committed to turning Cleveland into a winner. Thank God Lerner sold the majority stake to someone whose passion is football...Lerner can get back across the pond and focus on his passion.
I'm gonna reserve judgment until we see if he's gonna be like Al Davis or Dan Snyder...
Quote:
I'm gonna reserve judgment until we see if he's gonna be like Al Davis or Dan Snyder...
He can be like Jerry Jones all he wants if it means we're ganna win multiple Super Bowls.
This is big news. Seems like he is ready to focus all his time and energy on the Browns.
Didn't he say in his introductory press conference that he was going to remain the CEO?
(I answered my own question: Haslam said he and his wife, Dee, will buy a home in Cleveland and split time between Northeast Ohio and Tennessee. He’ll still serve as the CEO of Pilot Flying J.
“I think you’ll find we’re pretty transparent open people,” Haslam said. “Our main home will be in Knoxville. Dee is leaving as soon as the press conference is over to go look at homes here in Cleveland. We’ll split our time between Knoxville and Cleveland. I’m still going to be CEO of Pilot Flying J. It’s a big company and I spend a pretty good amount of time running that. We’ll take whatever time necessary in Cleveland to do two things, one to bring a winner back here and number two, to become part of the Cleveland community.”
Link)
I wonder what has changed since then.
Quote:
I wonder what has changed since then.
He watched the game on Sunday. 
I liked this part :
"It is believed that Lerner is retaining a minority stake in the team while he pays off existing debts, including to former executives and coaches."
Man.. the money that was wasted.
Davis,Crennel,Savage,Mangini and all their staff that got paid from this team and the choices some of them made.. Makes me sick.
I'm pretty sure his soccer club, Aston Villa, is in debt as well.
oh great, our owner is a quitter
purple font?
Jimmy Haslam said the following when word came that he was buying 70% of the Browns...in an "little publicized" interview with Peter King.
Peter King>MONDAY MORNING QB - TUESDAY
sitting down with Haslam
August 7, 2012
Jimmy Haslam has the right idea on running the Browns. I spoke to Haslam for 30 minutes Sunday and was impressed. Three things I liked:
1. He knows what he doesn't know. I counted four times in our conversation that he said some version of, "I just don't know the answer to that yet,'' or, "I might know better in two months. I just don't know now." He's a CEO of a truck stop company with more than 500 locations in the United States and Canada, but he's smart enough to know he's about to enter a business in which smart men get their heads handed to them in competition every year, and no one's a genius.
2. He was schooled in, and took valuable lessons from, one of the best football laboratories in the league -- Pittsburgh's. As a 12 percent owner of the Steelers for the last three seasons, he's seen the benefit of the Steeler way. "One thing I took from the Steelers,'' he said, "is if you've got a great leader, GM and coach -- which they do -- you've filled the three most important boxes, and you're off to a great start.'' Add the quarterback, and he's right. The solid, consistent competence of the Rooney family, general manager Kevin Colbert and coach Mike Tomlin give the Steelers a chance every year.
3. He's going to be much more involved day-to-day with the Browns than Randy Lerner was, from the sound of things. He'll buy a home in Cleveland and be around the team at least one day a week during the season, while continuing to run his business in Tennessee. Even though his presence guarantees nothing, Haslam wants to sit in the stands at a game or two, and he wants to go into the community to thank the fans for being so loyal.
"It's very important to thank your customers for their loyalty,'' he said. "In my business, I go to the stores unannounced fairly often to talk to my employees. It's important to assess your business often, and to ask the people out in the field for ideas. I ask, 'What are we doing wrong?' Ninety-five percent of our new ideas come from our employees."
Football's a different business; the fans in the Dawg Pound can't tell him who to draft. But his idea about contact with the people who have supported the team for so long is laudable.
One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach. "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.''
Haslam won't talk about his plans with any employee until his ownership bid is approved -- which from all indications is imminent. But he'll find out soon enough that finding a quarterback is the biggest predictor of future success. And everyone in the organization's going to be a lot smarter if Brandon Weeden can play.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Jimmy Haslam knows what he does not know...OK, Randy Lerner said the same thing and finally hired someone to handle the football side of the operations when he hired Holmgren, and with Heckert, the three agreed that rebuilding the team via the draft was the best course of action.
2. Haslam, learned from the best in football...
...as a minority owner of the Steelers for "3 yrs", learned how to build a football team...so he says.
Serious question...Does Haslam really understand how and when the Steelers turned their franchise around?
3. Haslam is going to be a more involved owner...
...Really...according to this article, Haslam will be in Cleveland 1 day a week. That means game day...hate to tell Jimmy this but Lerner is here at least 1 day a week and probably more now that he lives in Cleveland. So, bottom line, Haslam will be here less than Lerner, if Peter King is accurate in his reporting.
4. Haslam said..."They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' ...
...Jimmy, Browns fans learned this one long before you thought about buying the Browns. Constant change is the enemy of the Browns.
Haslam said..."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.''...
....again Jimmy, Browns fans have learned this lesson the hard way, and we didn't have to learn it from the Steelers...we have lived it.
...also, Jimmy, it's not just the changes at head coach that sets a franchise back 3 or 4 yrs.
It's the changes in the assistant coaching staff...the changes in the front office...the changes in the scouting department...just to name a few areas where change can hurt the teams progress.
Jimmy Haslam is "talking" like he gets it, but I have the feeling he will be no different than the last owner. Haslam is going to come in, and hire his buddies and they will do what Browns fans have seen so many times, make changes that hurt, not help the Browns build a winner.
The 5 yr rebuilding process is just over half way complete and now our new truck stop owner is "either" going to get aboard and help complete the rebuilding process...OR, he is going to destroy the 5 yr rebuilding process.
The Browns started a 5 yr rebuilding program in 2010 and we now have the 3rd draft class in place. I hope Jimmy realizes just where this rebuild process is and I hope he has the intelligence and fortitude to completes it.
Bottom line...Jimmy Haslam is about to do what he just identified as some of the reasons for the franchises lack of success...that is hypocrisy at it's best.
web page
So far, not much other than being high profile. Until it is all finalized, we know less than he does about his operation. We can speculate and that is all. Hardly a grand interview. I hope he does well by us, but I expect a couple really poor bumps at first. Winning forgives everything; losing forgives nothing. So I suggest winning.
We'll see... New ownership USUALLY portends change of some sort. It's just the way it goes. In the Browns' case, if we remain on a losing glide path at the end of this season with little tangible improvement, I would expect bigger changes than just Holmgren's anticipated departure.
Once his team is in place, however, if he continues the FO/coaching carousel we've been on since our reincarnation, THEN I think it would be fair to start questioning the comments he made shortly after the sale was announced. Until that time comes, though, I think such criticism is unwarranted and a bit unfair. Let's wait to see what actually happens (for a change) before jumping all over the man.
Quote:
3. Haslam is going to be a more involved owner...
...Really...according to this article, Haslam will be in Cleveland 1 day a week. That means game day...hate to tell Jimmy this but Lerner is here at least 1 day a week and probably more now that he lives in Cleveland. So, bottom line, Haslam will be here less than Lerner, if Peter King is accurate in his reporting.
He said....
"He'll buy a home in Cleveland and be around the team at least one day a week during the season..."
Which I took as 1 day during the week (practice) he will be in to see and watch the team, then one would assume he will be there on game day as well, being they put it with the "home in Cleveland" comment, otherwise 8 games are not in Cleveland so the "home" point would be irrelevant.
And the term "at least", indicates what we all know, that he has another business he must also attend to, and is currently very intuned to as far as interaction with his employee's. All signs he will be around and get to know the players, the staf and the organization very well.
except now that we know his "other" business is no longer a big responsibility for him, I'd assume he's changed his mind over the past few weeks.
He stepped down from Flying J yesterday, meaning he has realized the Browns need his full attention.
Quote:
Once his team is in place, however, if he continues the FO/coaching carousel we've been on since our reincarnation, THEN I think it would be fair to start questioning the comments he made shortly after the sale was announced. Until that time comes, though, I think such criticism is unwarranted and a bit unfair. Let's wait to see what actually happens (for a change) before jumping all over the man.
lifer...this is the problem...the front office changes have already started if what we read is true, that Banner is going to replace Holmgren.
So don't give me this stuff, that my criticism of Haslam is unfair !
I have had this story for some time now and not posted it, because I thought it would be wrong to call Haslam "a hypocrite". I wanted to wait to see if Haslam would follow his own advice..Haslam is on record, saying the following...
.."They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.''
... "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.''
I'm pointing out that in the case of the Browns, we are in the middle of a rebuilding program, just over 50% completed, with the foundation of the defense drafted in 2010 and 2011 and the foundation for the offense drafted this year.
This is a critical time in the rebuilding process and I read this morning that Haslam has hired Joe Banner to replace Holmgren? Obviously the leak is ok with Haslam, because there are no denials.
The changes Haslam said would set the franchise back 3 to 4 yrs, have already started under Jimmy Haslam's leadership...and he is not even the official owner yet.
Any idea what news like this does to a franchise?...the front office, the coaching staff, the players...
If Holmgren is replaced by freaking "penny pincher" Joe Banner, who was in charge of negotiating player contracts...NOT PERSONNEL...what do you believe is going to happen once Haslam does take over?
Haslam is going to prove himself to be a hypocrite, based on his own comments to Peter King.
As a life long Browns fan who knows what the constant change has done to this franchise since 1999...I know Jimmy Haslam was correct when he sited "change" as an enemy of the Browns...
...now I'm about to watch, yet again, someone who likes to talk, but he can't even heed his own words of wisdom.
Lets see how it plays out once the ownership change is official, before we form that conclusion or another.
Quote:
Overthinking it mac.
damn...no, just thinking...not following !
You may not believe Haslam is going to make a hypocrite out of himself based on his own words?...I do.
I seriously doubt that Haslam even knows about the Steelers history and when they finally changed the direction of their franchise.
I'm afraid Haslam is going to be what he is...a truck stop owner.
If he is hiring Joe "freaking" Banner to replace Holmgren...heaven help us all !
Here we are, just half way through a rebuilding process and the guy who is going to take over the rebuilding project, is a freaking economics major, who was in charge of negotiating player contracts in Philly and got fired by his best friend because Andy Reid made the owner make a choice...him or Banner.
Hiring Banner to replace Holmgren is sending shockwaves through the entire franchise...that I can guarantee everyone...a penny pincher to finish the rebuilding project...yea, that should work well.
Haslam's first hire might be his worst...
I think you're a little late to the sky is falling party. What took you so long to get there?
Quote:
Quote:
Overthinking it mac.
damn...no, just thinking...not following !
You may not believe Haslam is going to make a hypocrite out of himself based on his own words?...I do.
I seriously doubt that Haslam even knows about the Steelers history and when they finally changed the direction of their franchise.
I'm afraid Haslam is going to be what he is...a truck stop owner.
If he is hiring Joe "freaking" Banner to replace Holmgren...heaven help us all !
Here we are, just half way through a rebuilding process and the guy who is going to take over the rebuilding project, is a freaking economics major, who was in charge of negotiating player contracts in Philly and got fired by his best friend because Andy Reid made the owner make a choice...him or Banner.
Hiring Banner to replace Holmgren is sending shockwaves through the entire franchise...that I can guarantee everyone...a penny pincher to finish the rebuilding project...yea, that should work well.
Haslam's first hire might be his worst...
Oh I really don't know if he'll be a hypocrite or not.
As for if he knows the history,, believe me, this is a man that runs a 30 bill business. The first thing you do when you join a company if your smart, is learn the history. Haslam strikes me as being damn smart.
As for holmgren, as someone else pointed to me, the Banner thing is rumor. There have been no official announcements made by the Browns, Lerner, Holmgren, Banner or haslam. just a bunch of speculation.
Might Holmgren be gone,, hey,, maybe. will it be the end of the world.. well, I won't like it, but like I said, if that's what the new owner wants and it ends up working, I'm good to go with it.
You say that Haslams first hire may be his worst,, but you failed to mention it might be his best.
for what its worth, speculation is running rampant but the parties involved aren't really speaking.
For instance, you bring up that he's only going to spend 1 day a week in Cleveland but as someone else SPECULATED, that could mean one day during the week and then game day, Then we hear he's stepped down as CEO of Pilot which should free him up to even spend more time on the Browns.
THe article you are posting was dated August 7.. the article about him stepping down as CEO was dated yesterday.
your article is already outdated, circumstances have changed since your article.
I can, based on this recent article, speculate that he's intending to spend a great deal more time here than in knoxville.
So now, what does that do to your thinking.
could he become a "Rooney" type owner or a "Snyder" type owner? Not sure myself. either is possible.
But yeah, I do think you are over thinking it based on an article over a month old. he's not even been confirmed as owner yet.
I'm actually not at all concerned.. I was initially because I felt and still do that this regime is professional, makes decent decisions overall and can win. (sundays offensive performance aside because I expected that. I just knew they would struggle, just didn't think it would be quite that badly)
But in the end, I don't really care who the coach is, who the GM or President is.. I wanna winner.. if Haslam brings one home to me,, I'm good.
they'll be plenty of time to pick on him afterward..LOL
I wouldn't consider it hypocritical for him to clean house when he gets here.
Firing the new group set in place after two or three years could be, though.
Quote:
Lets see how it plays out once the ownership change is official, before we form that conclusion or another.
i agree with you, but you have to admit that stepping down as CEO (though still chairman of the board) means that the Browns just became his #1 responsibility.
that is a pretty hefty move.
Quote:
If Holmgren is replaced by freaking "penny pincher" Joe Banner, who was in charge of negotiating player contracts...NOT PERSONNEL...what do you believe is going to happen once Haslam does take over?
That Banner is going to run the business of the Cleveland Browns and have a player personnel staff that makes player decisions?
One of the biggest mistakes Holmgren made since taking the job was giving Mangini another year. He was hired to execute his vision and put that vision on hold because he didn't want to be a "hypocrite" and fire a coach after he had preached about giving coaches time. Guess what? We're worse off today and a year behind because he was afraid to be a "hypocrite".
In truth, there's nothing hypocritical about it. When there's a change in leadership at any level, the leader's first task must be to form his organization how he sees fit. If that means gutting the front office and coaching staff and building it his way, that is what I WANT to happen, as much as it might suck to take another step back. The last thing I want is for Haslam to show mercy and keep people around that he really doesn't see in his long-term vision, only to pull the trigger later on. It's a waste of time and energy.
Now... if he starts gunning his staffs down Lerner-style after he brings them in, then I have problems. As is though, it needs to happen if the guys we have aren't the guys Haslam wants.
Honestly, right now I'm just happy we have an owner who is making arrangements that will let him spend more time with the team instead of making arrangements to be overseas and out of the football operations as much as humanly possible.
or maybe he didnt fire him right away because he didnt have anyone to take his spot...Thats my opinion
Quote:
The Browns started a 5 yr rebuilding program in 2010 and we now have the 3rd draft class in place. I hope Jimmy realizes just where this rebuild process is and I hope he has the intelligence and fortitude to completes it.
Bottom line...Jimmy Haslam is about to do what he just identified as some of the reasons for the franchises lack of success...that is hypocrisy at it's best.
web page
We tried to tell you the "five year plan" was a thing that walked hand-in-hand down the yellow-brick road with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, but you had your head stuck back there in the 80's.
Holmgren made mistake after mistake and now he's being ousted. There never was going to be a five-year plan after how he started things off and then started doing these crazy reaches in the draft.
Money in the bank.
The funny part about this goes back to the conversation DC and I had with you. Haslam never...NEVER...said he wasn't going to rebuild the FO and coaching staff when he talked about acknowledging how a turnstyle at the coaching level meant failure.
YOU chose to interpret his comments that way. That's a Mac-problem, not a Haslam problem.
All he did was acknowledge what every idiot football fan who can count to ten knows, which is that if you're rotating coaches every few years it means the coaches and front office suck. End of story.
(edited thanks to BrownieElf)
Now let me tell you what his comments DON'T mean, because you're, again, not getting it...
You have no idea whether or not Haslam intends to build through the draft, yet your calling him a hypocrite. He never said he would keep Holmgren and Co. That's your problem for not understanding him, and thus he cannot be a hypocrite. Now if you decide to say that you think he's an idiot for not keeping Holmgren, that's an entirely different thing, but a hypocrite he would NOT be.
Gotta get your facts right, Mac.
I'm gonna say it one more time just in the slimmest of hopes that it gets through your ears and into your brain:
Jimmy Haslam NEVER...I repeat...NEVER...said he would keep the coaches. YOU wrongly interpreted what he said to fit what you WISHED would happen.
What Jimmy Haslam DID say was that changing coaches every few years reflected the fact that your team sucked. All he did was draw a correlation between losing and coaches coming and going. He did NOT indicate that keeping coaches just for the sake of keeping coaches was what he intended to do.
That's your problem. Not his. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can start forming opinions based on fact, not the fantasy you've created in your head.
Haslam cannot be a hypocrite by going against something he did NOT say. It's a factual impossibility.
If you can show me where he said he would keep Holmgren and Shurmur, then you can call him a liar and a hypocrite. Until then, what you're doing is something akin to slander.
As for my opinion, Heckert has a proven track record of success. He should stay. Jauron is doing a damned fine job of trying to make a respectable unit out of inferior talent. Childress knows the WCO as well as any active coach in the league, but he can't do much with the "talent" on offense here. Shurmur? As I've said, not even Lombardi could coax 7 wins out of this team. It's harder to judge him but it doesn't look good at the moment.
So what about Holmgren? He's failed, purely and simply. We can attempt to gloss over and rationalize all we wish, but there is no excuse for a team to be in the 3rd year of a President's reign to be in our position. That's a fact. We can talk about how much "talent" we have on this team until the cows come home, but we don't have a wealth of "talent." All we have is a wealth of promises, and there are no guarantees about that.
Sorry, Mac, but IMHO Haslam is nothing close to a hypocrite. In fact, I see just the opposite. He sees failure for what it is and isn't shy about throwing out the trash.
Good for Jimmy Haslam.
We're going to have a new head coach. He'll be young enough to be here 10 years minimum. If he's indeed modeling Pitt. start looking at young, high profile guys out there (unemployed or DC OC guys) or very promising college coaches.
I dont think Shurmer stands a chance. Maybe Heckert but not Shurmer.
Start your list.
I think that Heckert and Shurmur are here for the rest of this year, at a minimum.
If the team shows progress throughout the year, and wins more games as the year goes along, then they have a chance to keep their jobs.
Banner is from the Eagles line, and so are Heckert and Shurmur. I think that could bode well for them, if they can produce decent results.
Quote:
I think that Heckert and Shurmur are here for the rest of this year, at a minimum.
If the team shows progress throughout the year, and wins more games as the year goes along, then they have a chance to keep their jobs.
Banner is from the Eagles line, and so are Heckert and Shurmur. I think that could bode well for them, if they can produce decent results.
I can see Heckert staying but that is completely dependent on how good that prior relationship was. Just because I work with a guy doesn't mean that I like him. Shurmur's job is tied to results on the field from the offense since he is so intimately involved with that part of the team.
Anything can happen at this point. It's too early to tell who stays and who goes.
One thing I like is having an owner that seemingly desires to be invloved and producer a winner. I don't think I've ever felt that way with Lerner.
Quote:
All he did was acknowledge what every idiot football fan who can count to ten knows, which is that if you're rotating coaches every few years it means the coaches suck. End of story.
I can sorta agree with your premise, but I think you are taking that wrong. Here's what he said from above...
"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.''
You are implying that the team has sucked because our coaches have sucked. While it could very well be true that some of our coaches have sucked, it's much more likely that given time...the 'consistency' that he talked about, that we would have started winning.
These guys that get these jobs are the best of the best. While some of them might be 'promoted to their level of incompetence' it's just as likely that they didn't get the time to implement their system either.
You need a GM that finds a guy who drafts well.
You need a coach that's on the same page as the GM.
You need both of those guys to work together to build a team.
And finally...you need time to coach up the players in the system, and weed out the guys that aren't cutting it.
Then, and only then do you start to see a team take shape.
Consistency is the key. I'm not advocating time for the sake of time. Or saying that a coach that doesn't measure up shouldn't be replaced. I'm simply saying that we will never see results with this constant knee jerk replacement of front offices.
We finally have a FO on the same page. In that Holmgren succeeded. We have a solid guy drafting. We have a young coach. That's the true wild-card...but the sad truth is, who the heck was going to come here and hop on the carousel, with the talent we had? Nobody of note i'll wager.
I hope to God he leaves it alone. If he don't, and he blows it all up, I hope he leaves it alone then. Let the team grow together. This crap is real old.
I agree.. I don't see a point in making a move now or in the near future.
To all the people that want to start over with the firing of Holmgren and Shurmer...
What's YOUR brilliant move ? Who's the can't miss head coach that would have us looking like a contender after the same amount of time and conditions the current guys have had ?
I want names so I can gain some insight into your wisdom...
I see Heckert and Jauron being safe... they rest??? pfft who cares.
That laid it out more in-depth than I did. It's much bigger than just keeping coaches for the sake of continuity. You covered it the way I should have, especially since I should have taken the time to make sure the difference between what Mac believed Haslam said and what he really said was clear and concise. I've edited my post with the couple of words to affect my intent.
Quote:
This is big news. Seems like he is ready to focus all his time and energy on the Browns.
Didn't he say in his introductory press conference that he was going to remain the CEO?
(I answered my own question: Haslam said he and his wife, Dee, will buy a home in Cleveland and split time between Northeast Ohio and Tennessee. He’ll still serve as the CEO of Pilot Flying J.
“I think you’ll find we’re pretty transparent open people,” Haslam said. “Our main home will be in Knoxville. Dee is leaving as soon as the press conference is over to go look at homes here in Cleveland. We’ll split our time between Knoxville and Cleveland. I’m still going to be CEO of Pilot Flying J. It’s a big company and I spend a pretty good amount of time running that. We’ll take whatever time necessary in Cleveland to do two things, one to bring a winner back here and number two, to become part of the Cleveland community.” Link)
I wonder what has changed since then.
I think that his original intention was to remain as CEO of Pilot / Flying J but that events have made it apparent that he will have to pay attention to matters in his recent $1 billion investment in an NFL franchise. That's a rather large purchase that cannot be left to incompetent underlings like Holmgren.
It appears to me that this move puts 100% certainty that the Holmgren reign of terror in Berea is ending. It may also mean that Heckert and Shurmur are gone as well. I think that a shake-up in the front office is imminent, maybe as soon as the Haslam's ownership is official. He may already have told Holmgren & Co. that they will be fired as soon as his ownership is official.
new ownership that wants to be involved = putting his people in place = Holmgren's a goner (and I'll bet most of the people at that level like Haskell).
likely many more people as well, but Banner should already know if he trusts some of the individuals in place as he has worked with them before.
I just hope that the youthful foundation that Heckert/Holmgren have built is worth building onto regardless of who does the further building.
As for the final part of you statement, I think that Jauron will probably be left in place with the defense (at least), and he may be asked to be the interim head coach.
It makes no sense to keep people if you don't think they are right for the job. Lerner has proven that he has no clue what he is doing when hiring sports people (football and soccer). If I were the new owner I wouldn't want to trust Lerner's track record.
Lerner took control of the Browns in 2002, at that point Butch Davis was already head coach. Since Davis there has been Romeo, Mangini, and Holmgren (who hired Shurmur). All three were/are disasters.
Lerner took control of Aston Villa in 2006. Since then they have had three different managers.
Quote:
As for the final part of you statement, I think that Jauron will probably be left in place with the defense (at least), and he may be asked to be the interim head coach.
i'd think he leaves the staff in place through the end of the season unless things are really falling apart. he can make his big move then.
now, I expect Holmgren's ouster to be announced early and possibly Heckerts (if he wants to replace him). those are more removed from the actual football in-season and he needs to get a head-start on preparing for the off-season if he can.
I like our defensive staff, but if Haslam/Banner decide to clean-house they may not stop on the offensive side of the ball.
It is rare for a GM to get the boot in the middle of the season. Mostly because they are hard to replace. No one wants to leave their team out in the cold mid-season.
Quote:
I think that Heckert and Shurmur are here for the rest of this year, at a minimum.
If the team shows progress throughout the year, and wins more games as the year goes along, then they have a chance to keep their jobs.
Banner is from the Eagles line, and so are Heckert and Shurmur. I think that could bode well for them, if they can produce decent results.
And Haslam being more from the Pittsburgh line of thinking I believe is more apt to hang onto Heckert and Shurmur. In one of the articles, he made mention of us hiring a new HC every 2.8 years which is absolutly nuts.. you can't build anything that way.. Pittsburgh knows it, Philly knows it.
So, if you think about it, if Banner does indeed come on board, they all come with the same basic thought process.. stability and build through the draft.
Honestly, I think Holmgren is he only guy that is in initial jeapardy. But of course, they may all be if they don't show some serious progress.
Quote:
And Haslam being more from the Pittsburgh line of thinking I believe is more apt to hang onto Heckert and Shurmur. In one of the articles, he made mention of us hiring a new HC every 2.8 years which is absolutly nuts.. you can't build anything that way.. Pittsburgh knows it, Philly knows it.
So, if you think about it, if Banner does indeed come on board, they all come with the same basic thought process.. stability and build through the draft.
Honestly, I think Holmgren is he only guy that is in initial jeapardy. But of course, they may all be if they don't show some serious progress.
This is what I think.. or maybe what I hope... not sure yet. I think Haslam believes what he says, that doesn't want a carousel of coaches and GMs.. therefore he is going to do his due diligence before making a change. He may even give this group one more year before deciding. I don't know, but the feeling that I get is that he only wants to make the change once (hence his comment about not changing every 2.8 years). He has to know that he gets ONE free pass to bring in his own people and after that he owns the decision.
So I look for him to grade out what we have, look at what's available, talk to people, etc A LOT before making a decision. I do not look for him to make changes just for the sake of making changes without a real solid feeling like its an upgrade.
-jc-
I think Pat is gone and Tom has a 50% chance of staying. True Haslam said you can't keep changing coaches but that doesn't mean he won't change the current regime. What he means is when he puts his guys in place they will be here for a while to maintain stability.
I am excited to see Haslam come in. Lerner tried, he really did but this wasn't his passion and it shows. Hopefully this will work out for us fans and our franchise is taking steps to be a respectable franchise again.
J/C, I think some of you would find fault in Jesus Christ himself
Quote:
J/C, I think some of you would find fault in Jesus Christ himself
Have you ever seen him try to get the edge on a pull block?
Some blame the sandals, but seriously, if you can walk on water, you should be able to run in sandals.
Quote:
Quote:
J/C, I think some of you would find fault in Jesus Christ himself
Have you ever seen him try to get the edge on a pull block?
Some blame the sandals, but seriously, if you can walk on water, you should be able to run in sandals.
Honestly, I don't even know where this "consistency of coaching" silliness comes from... decades ago I’m assuming. Here's some fun stats that illustrate reality today.
- Number of coaches who have had their current job more than 3 years without posting a .500 or better record in their first 2 seasons? One. (Jim Schwartz in Year 3)
- Number of non-new hire coaches still around who haven't posted a winning season yet? Five.
- Before I go on, that makes the numbers:
- 56% of NFL coaches have posted at least a .500 record with their current team within 2 years
- 21.9% of coaches were new hires in 2012
- 15.6% of coaches have been with their current team at least 1 year and haven’t posted a .500 record (guess where Shurmur is)
Of those coaches, in order of win/loss record:
Pete Carroll, 2010 - 14-18 (44%) - Relatively safe, went to playoffs in 2010
Ron Rivera, 2011 - 6-11 (35%) - Relatively safe because of year end improvement
Leslie Frazier, 2010 - 7-16 (30%) - On the hot seat
Chan Gailey, 2010 - 10-23 (30%) - On the hot seat
Pat Shurmur, 2011 - 4-13 (23%) - On the hot seat
Those numbers don’t lie. At minimum, get your team to .500 and relevant by Year 3 at minimum if not Year 2. Otherwise, you’re getting canned. We can debate roster strength until we’re blue in the face but other coaches manage to turn around garbage. The teams that have stability anymore have it because their coach shows them something early on, not because they suck for years and stick with it. In a league that allows “worst-to-first” more than any other, to scrape along in the gutter every single year is inexcusable. Yes, it’s early to fire Shurmur after this year but let’s be honest – he’s been one of the worst coaches in the league thus far. If Haslam wants to get his own people, I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all for him to fast forward a year for Shurmur. The same goes for Holmgren and even Heckert unfortunately… produce or you’ll be replaced. Our basement low expectations need to leave town along with Randy Lerner.
In short (which I know is quite funny after this monster post), it’s not just that teams win because they have stability… they have stability because they win.
I can feel you there. The reality is until we find the right Balance it will always be wrong. If you keep tipping the scales to one side then the other it will never balance.
We have a tri scale and the players are the singles the coaching the decades and the GM is the 100's. Right now we are sitting about 827.
You know, I've seen so many act as though a new owner in Haslam is a new beginning, an answer to a prayer. I won't say that it isn't, yet to a great degree I don't understand all the giddiness associated with this.
Let's look at the reality of this situation. People suggest that somehow his small owning interest in the Steelers is cause for optimism. Yet Haslam didn't even buy into the Steelers until 2008. All the while, he was actually the CEO of Flying J. Running that business, not the Steelers. So what credentials does that give him as being an actual "owner of a team"?
Then we have the rumored hire of Banner. By all accounts I've seen, Banner has been mainly a pencil pusher for Philly and in no way a football operations guy what so ever. So thus far, we have someone who invested money, not time, in a minor ownership of a team, and only a few years at that..... combined with a pencil pusher from Philly.
Can someone explain to me how that all of a sudden makes them experts at hiring the right guys to run our Cleveland Browns? What is it about those two resumes' that can realisticly give you any more faith that they will hire a more compitant group than the Lerners did?
Both families come from a purely business background. One could easily believe and with some confidence I might add, that MBNA is far more successful than Flying J. While Haslam has only been a minority owner since 2008, the Al Lerner bought started buying ownership in the Browns during the 70's.
From a purely statistical look at things, the Lerner family has been in the "NFL ownership game" for as many decades, as Haslam has been in it for years. Randy acutally grew up in a family that owned the Browns. He heard and knew of all of the things going on with regards to owning a team. At least a part of his life revolved around it.
So now comes in the newbie. Being a minority owner of a team for a very short time and all the while, investing the vast majority of his time in flying J on a day to day basis than anything. A guy who self admitidly
Dad and I were taking showers after practice and he said, ‘What do you think?’ and I said. ‘I think we have a lot to learn,’ but we think it’s an unbelievable opportunity...... Not saying that understanding that you have a lot to learn is a bad thing, but it does say that even in your own mind, you know that you need a lot more information to do the job as an NFL owner.
Question: On how active he will be in terms of football decisions:
Haslam: “I think it will be a learning curve. I mean you’ve got a guy that won a Super Bowl over there that’s going to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, that’s a legend. I’ll be honest, there’s a fan part of me too. Last night I was looking forward to dinner to meet Mike, but he’s also a guy I’ve thought a lot of so we’re going to ask a lot of questions and learn it first. I’m a believer in collective wisdom and if you have five smart people sitting around the table, it’s better than four, but we’re going to take some time to get up to speed before we get real involved in any football decisions. It probably comes a little quicker on the business side for us.”
Think about this. Once again, by his own admission, he knows very little about the problems and issues the Browns really have here.
Question: On what he knew about the franchise before July 2 and what he has learned since:
Haslam: “I didn’t know a lot. I knew the Browns had struggled over the years, because I’ve been on the other side of that with that other team. Since July 2, I’ve picked up the Plain Dealer every day and see what the news is on practice, when did Trent (Richardson) sign, when did Brandon (Weeden) sign and all those kind of things, but I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Cleveland Browns, and won’t for quite some time. Now, I think it’s my job to get there
Yet again, mant speak in terms of a new day dawning. A new direction, Holmgren and this entire staff being "blown up". If you actually believe what Haslam is saying, that very well may not be the case. If you can't believe what he says, we'll know very soon. And if you can't believe what he says, what does that tell you?
Question: On how he plans on balancing the changes he will bring to the franchise against blowing it up:
Haslam: “Here again, I’ve been in the Cleveland community one day so I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I sense there’s a strong feeling here that Mike and the team do have things headed in the right direction. I just think we’ve got to listen, learn and observe. You know in football, you either win or you lose. There’s not a question of how did we do. I think over time these guys will be successful.” I'm not saying that Haslam may or may not be an improvement over the Lerner family. What I'm saying is there is no great reason I can see for some of the overwhelming optimism I've seen that Haslam will be an improvement.
And it's kind of a funny thing. He seems to fully understand he isn't that well versed in the actual game of football or the actual state of the Browns. Yet.......
“Somebody asked me that when we were having lunch, about being hands on because we run our main business hands on. I looked over at Mike and I said, ‘Mike probably doesn’t want us to be hands on,’ but I think our style is going to be involved. So the really big question remains. Will Haslam be an improvement, or will he be the second coming of Al Davis?
The jury is still out on that one.......
The fact is, this is year three of Homgrens five year plan. The fact is we have on idea if that plan will or won't work. This is the very first draft that they have actually heavily invested in the offense and as most of us know, you really won't know about how a draft class will actually turn out for a couple of years at least.
Well, until just here lately when it seems so many have forgotten that. Of course there will be some misses as with every GM on every draft. But there would still be a couple of draft classes left to address those needs.
As a Browns fan, I certainly hope for all of our sakes that Haslam and whoever he brings in will be the answer to our woes. But his resume and admitance to needing to learn a lot surely is no huge stamp of confidence.
So here's to hoping for the best. Because in reality, when looking at all of the evidence, hope is really all we have here....
For all items in this color, here is the link http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-sports-blog/index.ssf/2012/08/cleveland_browns_new_owner_jim.html
Quote:
Quote:
J/C, I think some of you would find fault in Jesus Christ himself
Have you ever seen him try to get the edge on a pull block?
Some blame the sandals, but seriously, if you can walk on water, you should be able to run in sandals.
He also lacks a mean streak. 
Quote:
You know, I've seen so many act as though a new owner in Haslam is a new beginning, an answer to a prayer. I won't say that it isn't, yet to a great degree I don't understand all the giddiness associated with this.
Simple response:
Addition by subtractions, ie: He can't do any worse than Lerner.
Another simple response....
If all things end up being equal, we break even.
And don't forget, he's kind of undersized for the position. Certainly not a mauler.
Here's the thing. It's now the 14th year since someone named "Lerner" has been calling the shots for this team. During that time, our level of success has been pitiful, and we've failed to put any semblance of a consistent winner on the field primarily because we've failed to put any semblance of a consistent winner in the front office.
Randy Lerner has gone through several shot-callers and they've all bombed. None of them had a track record of success at the jobs they were hired for. There was zero reason to believe he'd ever get it, so finding someone else can't possibly be any worse.
That alone is reason for optimism, especially when Haslam has come right out and put the wheels in motion to install a proven winner in Banner. You wanna say you don't understand it, which really means you don't agree with it. Cool, that's your absolute right, but that is the reason why so many are excited.
When you've been handed nothing but crap by an owner for a decade, getting rid of that owner is a victory.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
J/C, I think some of you would find fault in Jesus Christ himself
Have you ever seen him try to get the edge on a pull block?
Some blame the sandals, but seriously, if you can walk on water, you should be able to run in sandals.
He also lacks a mean streak.
Oh yeah, did you hear what he did to those evil tax collectors
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
J/C, I think some of you would find fault in Jesus Christ himself
Have you ever seen him try to get the edge on a pull block?
Some blame the sandals, but seriously, if you can walk on water, you should be able to run in sandals.
He also lacks a mean streak.
Oh yeah, did you hear what he did to those evil tax collectors
Yeah, but He's always forgiving people ..... I mean, He forgave the guys who drove nails through his hands and feet ....... He's never going to retaliate for a chop block. 
Oh I get it. You're trying to pawn off a pencil pusher in Banner as some reason to change this.
Banner has no experience when it comes to hiring head coaches or in player personnel. So if he has any say in these things, it's yet another guy doing a job he's never been hired to do before.
Now if you're talking about salary cap numbers and contract negotiations I see your point. However, I didn't know we had a problem in either of those areas now.
But otherwise I don't see anyone that has been named to any job that helps us in or about anything related on the field.
I get it. People somehow feel a change, simply for the sake of change is going to be a good thing. But thus far, neither Banner nor Haslam have a resume's that will have any impact in regards to drafting, coaching or anything else that seems to be the main focus of our problems.
You can spin that any way you like. But bottom line, when it comes to Haslam, there are nore questions than answers. And a pencil pusher in Banner doesn't change that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
J/C, I think some of you would find fault in Jesus Christ himself
Have you ever seen him try to get the edge on a pull block?
Some blame the sandals, but seriously, if you can walk on water, you should be able to run in sandals.
He also lacks a mean streak.
Oh yeah, did you hear what he did to those evil tax collectors
Yeah, but He's always forgiving people ..... I mean, He forgave the guys who drove nails through his hands and feet ....... He's never going to retaliate for a chop block.
LOL ... well that just means he wont be getting flaged for a personal foul.
Yeah, but he also won't be able to pick up ANY blitzers with his feet nailed in place.... and on defense, it's ALL arm tackling. Grab a claw hammer and pull those nails out so you can wrap up, already!!!
Quote:
Quote:
You know, I've seen so many act as though a new owner in Haslam is a new beginning, an answer to a prayer. I won't say that it isn't, yet to a great degree I don't understand all the giddiness associated with this.
Simple response:
Addition by subtractions, ie: He can't do any worse than Lerner.
Yeah, how many coaches and players have this very phrase been said about over the last decade, and how has that worked for us?
It can ALWAYS get worse.
Quote:
It can ALWAYS get worse.
Not this team. Do I need to post records from this decade? We've hit rock bottom
Quote:
It can ALWAYS get worse.
Oddly enough, this would guarantee higher draft picks. At least that would be an improvement over the era of drafting high enough so that you know that we suck, but not high enough to build a winning team through steady injection and retention of high first & second round picks. At least if we're going to continue to suck, let's suck better than everyone else instead of merely being mediocre at it.
jc, that was a great initial post. I agree pretty much as well. I am kind of excited b/c HE seems to be excited. Lerner never seemed through the means I have to determine it, all that into the Browns. I think he felt an obligation to making us a winner, and tried............but we all know how that turned out.
on a superstitious note........I always thought with Lerner Sr. being a participant in the steal aka the move that having the Lerners as owners was a curse.
I say with that gone, and if we switch the sidelines back to the way they used to be (that also is one of my superstitions on why we consistantly suck.......we are on the visiting sidelines at our own stadium).........well then it's superbowl in the next 2 years!!!
Seriously so far in the 5 year plan, or D is looking vastly improved. Our Run D is a concern, but when everyone is back, I think we will be average at RunD. Given it's a passing league I'll live with that expecially given I think we can be elite in Pass D. Now that the plan is obviously to draft offense, and likely for another year (in my opinion we will draft O again next year.) I am hopefull we will see an improvement in the offense then as well since the D kind of proves they know what they are doing. That's my hope anyway.
Quote:
Addition by subtractions, ie: He can't do any worse than Lerner.
He can move them to Los Angeles.
Quote:
Quote:
Addition by subtractions, ie: He can't do any worse than Lerner.
He can move them to Los Angeles.
Yes, because the guy that was with Pittsburgh, and is from Tennessee, obviously has ties with LA.
Quote:
Banner has no experience when it comes to hiring head coaches or in player personnel.
I'm going to guess he knows plenty of people who do . . .
Quote:
Here's the thing. It's now the 14th year since someone named "Lerner" has been calling the shots for this team. During that time, our level of success has been pitiful, and we've failed to put any semblance of a consistent winner on the field primarily because we've failed to put any semblance of a consistent winner in the front office.
Randy Lerner has gone through several shot-callers and they've all bombed. None of them had a track record of success at the jobs they were hired for. There was zero reason to believe he'd ever get it, so finding someone else can't possibly be any worse.
That alone is reason for optimism, especially when Haslam has come right out and put the wheels in motion to install a proven winner in Banner. You wanna say you don't understand it, which really means you don't agree with it. Cool, that's your absolute right, but that is the reason why so many are excited.
When you've been handed nothing but crap by an owner for a decade, getting rid of that owner is a victory.
I'm not going to the extreme you are, but i'll play the odds. Odds are that Haslam is a better owner than Lerner.
Quote:
Oh I get it. You're trying to pawn off a pencil pusher in Banner as some reason to change this.
Here's a quote that refutes what you're pedaling:
Quote:
Joe Banner turned a dysfunctional organization into one of the most profitable franchises in the NFL. He is credited for being the key figure in the building of Lincoln Financial Field and the NovaCare Complex. He helped develop a structured front office that fields a competitive team season after season, and he shouldn't have to apologize to anybody for that. Finally, he managed the salary cap in such a brilliant, precise manner, the Eagles never had to cut players or let one go via free agency simply because money got too tight.
If anything, Banner might have been a victim of his own success, because truthfully the Eagles don't need him any longer. The franchise will have a license to print money long after he's gone. There are no more buildings to construct. They have a qualified front office in place to handle day-to-day operations. The one football-related job Joe had left, negotiating player contracts and managing the cap, he ceded to Howie Roseman, who was described as a "Banner guy" when he was promoted to general manager in 2010.
When you look at it from that perspective, it almost makes sense why Banner wouid be pushed out the door: he made himself obsolete. That ignores the fact that he and Lurie are pals, and everything the owner has, he owes to Banner... but it is controversial!
Legacy
The final goal Banner had left to accomplish was delivering the Lombardi Trophy to Philly, but obviously he recognizes now that was always out of his hands after a certain point. Banner will never lace 'em up, and he'll never grab a headset and call in a play to the quarterback. While he may know how to assign a dollar value to a player, he's not a full-time talent evaluator, so he's not going to set the depth chart or run the draft, either. He hired people to do all of that for him. That was never his area of his expertise.
web page
But nevermind all that. He's just a pencil-pusher.
We should have been so lucky as to have someone like him over the last decade, but the fact we have him now is a great reason for optimism.
It'll be nice having a winner in the front office for once...
Quote:
Quote:
Oh I get it. You're trying to pawn off a pencil pusher in Banner as some reason to change this.
Here's a quote that refutes what you're pedaling:
Quote:
Joe Banner turned a dysfunctional organization into one of the most profitable franchises in the NFL. He is credited for being the key figure in the building of Lincoln Financial Field and the NovaCare Complex. He helped develop a structured front office that fields a competitive team season after season, and he shouldn't have to apologize to anybody for that. Finally, he managed the salary cap in such a brilliant, precise manner, the Eagles neÁer had to cut players or let one go via free agency simply because money got too tight.
If anything, Banner might have been a victim of his own success, because truthfully the Eagles don't need him any longer. The franchise will have a license to print money long after he's gone. There are no more buildings to construct. They have a qualified front office in place to handle day-to-day operations. The one football-related job Joe had left, negotiating player contracts and managing the cap, he ceded to Howie Roseman, who was described as a "Banner guy" when he was promoted to general manager in 2010.
When you look at it from that perspective, it almost makes sense why Banner would be pushed out the door: he made himself obsolete. That ignores the fact that he and Lurie are pals, and everything the owner has, he owes to Banner... but it is controversial!
Legacy
The final goal Banner had left to accomplish was delivering the Lombardi Trophy to Philly, but obviously he recognizes now that was always out of his hands after a certain point. Banner will never lace 'em up, and he'll never grab a headset and call in a play to the quarterback. While he may know how to assign a dollar value to a player, he's not a full-time talent evaluator, so he's not going to set the depth chart or run the draft, either. He hired people to do all of that for him. That was never his area of his expertise.
web page
But nevermind all that. He's just a pencil-pusher.
We should have been so lucky as to have someone like him over the last decade, but the fact we have him now is a great reason for optimism.
It'll be nice having a winner in the front office for once...
Only one problem,, as of this writing, I've heard no news that he is coming,. just rumor and speculation.
With the adoration showered on Holmgren by Haslam and his father, why is everyone so sure that he's going anywhere? Again, could it all come true,, you bet.
Anyone heard anything concrete? No. and the reason is, Haslam has said he doesn't think it's right to comment on any changes he may or may not make (paraphrasing)
PIT..
It's very easy to dismiss Haslam as an owner because he lacks the real day to day experience of running/owning a team.
Here's a couple of thoughts for you.. Art Rooney didn't own any sports teams prior to the Steelers, Jerry Jones didn't, Al Davis didn't, I could go on and on but you get my drift.
At least there is one thing in Haslams favor, he's been associated with one of the most well run orgainzations in the league for 3 or 4 years. He's been wanting to buy a franchise for years but nothing became available until a part ownership in the steelers opened up when the Rooney family was wanting to split things up and Dan Rooney needed fresh money.
Now, do I really believe that Haslam was involved on a day to day basis with the Steelers? Of course not. Was he informed of major changes,, probably but they really haven't had any since he's become part owner. Unless you are talking about players and I doubt he got involved in player decisions at all.
Jimmy haslam has proven his business acumen. I doubt anyone can argue that.
What a great businessman does better than anything or anyone else is listen and learn. It's funny, but you seem to want to knock him for that.
Most NFL Owners have come from Non-Football related careers but for some reason, you question Haslam?
Haslam is going to talk to us. Lerner never did. that in and of itself is an improvement.
Now on to the greater question, do I think that Haslam coming in guarantees anything? No. I don't.
But what we have isn't working (and I've been more or less a supporter of Lerner because he's tried to hire people and let them do their jobs).
That hasn't worked and perhaps it's because he's just not here enough. maybe it needs an owner who's more hands on. Not from the stand point of a Dan Snyder who thinks he can run the team, but more like a Dan Rooney who's involved (at least before he became an ambassador).
But there really isn't any guarantees. So if that's what your looking for, it's a pipe dream.
There is not one NFL Owner that was any more prepared to own a franchise than haslam is. in fact, due to his part ownership in the steelers, he may be the most well equipped indiividual to come a long in a long long time.
So what you question about him, I embrace as what is possible.
I guess it's glass half full thinking. I can live with that..
What is Jimmy Haslam thinking? We'll find out eventually Published: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 10:00 PM
By Bud Shaw, The Plain Dealer
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The new owner is all ears. Hopefully for an exasperated fan base, he's not all thumbs, too.
Don't read anything big into Jimmy Haslam sitting in the back of the room during Pat Shurmur's post-game press conference Sunday. Shurmur has no reason for additional concern over and above the obvious: young coach, new owner, losing team, crushing defeat at home on a historically bad day for a rookie QB Shurmur stamped as ready for the season.
It's not as if Haslam raised his hand to ask the head coach, "And you are? And you're with?" That would be reason to worry.
Haslam's presence mostly showed he gets it. Either that he wants to learn more football or that he's smart enough to want to see how Shurmur speaks to fans through the media, how Shurmur handles tough questions, and whether Shurmur's answers derive from clear, logical reasoning.
The timing for what came next, I'm sure, was coincidental. Two days after watching the Browns fail to score an offensive touchdown, Haslam officially stepped down as CEO of Pilot Flying J and will serve as chairman. Obviously, fixing the Browns is a full-time job. Being a quick study, he already knew it before Weeden began missing receivers by the length of a 18-wheeler against Philadelphia.
My only hesitation about Haslam is now erased. It came during his introductory press conference when he said he planned to split his work between his CEO duties and ownership of the Browns. His status change with Pilot Flying J changed that. No doubt the Knoxville-Cleveland timeshare is still in effect to some extent. By stepping down, though, Haslam has sent another message that he's all-in as owner of the Browns.
This doesn't preclude long losing streaks or impotent offense or even a quarterback expedition that's rivaled the search for Bobby Fischer -- hallmarks of the Browns since 1999. It does increase the speed of the culture change in Berea and increase the odds that a fix for what ails the Browns might be permanent one of these fine days.
Haslam needs to immerse himself in a franchise that has become known for spinning its wheels and wasting time. At his press conference, he said the most important ingredient to the success of any CEO was the "people around you." And here I thought it was casual Friday.
He has important personnel decisions to make in the front office and on the coaching staff. By giving the Browns more attention he'll be in a better position to evaluate Mike Holmgren, Tom Heckert and Shurmur. And not simply take other people's opinions into account.
After Randy Lerner, who was as reluctant to own the team as Haslam is enthusiastic, I don't see how Haslam's hands-on ownership style is a bad thing.
Famous last words, I know.
But at least an exciting proposition for once.
Thanks for posting.
Bud Shaw reflects my own sentiments. Addition by subtraction with Haslam. He's not named "Lerner" and that's cause for optimism.
Damanshot (dude, I know what the handle stands for but for the life of me I've no idea how to shorten it up to make it palatable, and using the full name seems somehow way too formal after all these years ) of course nothing is written in stone yet, but as I've always preached, sometimes you have to apply a little deductive reasoning and common sense to any given situation.
Haslam bought a team for the bargain-basement price of $1 billion. He saw a bumbling offense and a try-hard defense which both got out-gunned at home on opening day. He sees a roster in it's 3rd year under a regime that is looking up at 30 or so teams in terms of talent.
Owners who take over teams and/or businesses that suck don't typically keep the people that caused the suckiness.
It's my opinion that if he doesn't poop-can the people responsible for what we see on the field and is instead willing to sit idle and let things go for another year, he may not be the owner I want for the team. I don't believe he got to be rich by making the decision to keep people who have failed in place. Considering that we're in Holmgren's 3rd year and we are in such a world of crap, it would be hard to justify keeping him on to continue to run the $1 billion dollar investment.
I just don't see it. Common sense tells me it's nearly impossible.
Now it'd be inevitable that some would read the words "poop-can the people responsible" to mean cleaning house. I don't mean that. We all talk as though we know every move that any guy has made. I know Holmgren is a meddler. It's a fact since he admitted he was the one that pulled rank to get McCoy. What we don't know is how far the meddling goes. The good news is that Haslam will get those answers. So if it's only Holmgren that ends up being the problem and is put back on a bus heading to Seattle, so be it. He's the one man left (Lerner is now gone ) who was most responsible for our current situation and is the obvious target. We don't know how much say Heckert had in everything, nor can we really get a good read on Shurmur, so that picture is far more murky. So I'm not talking about cleaning house. I'm talking about holding the one man accountable who put this mess together.
We shall see very shortly...
I love your Sig, man,"Wild Thing"!
I disagree that we are looking up at 30 different teams in terms of talent. I think we have a fair amount of talent and for the first time in a long time, I can see quite a few of our starters actually being able to start and contribute on other teams (good teams)... we've played that game before, who do the Browns have that anybody else might want and it used to come down to Joe Thomas and kickers.... Right now I can see over a dozen players that could start for a lot of other teams. Unfortunately, they are mostly in years 1 or 2 of their NFL careers... and when you have that much youth, it's not going to look good, but individually, we have more talent than we have had in a long time.
Quote:
Damanshot (dude, I know what the handle stands for but for the life of me I've no idea how to shorten it up to make it palatable, and using the full name seems somehow way too formal after all these years )
LOL I get it and wouldn't be offended at all if you shorten it to D or Dman or Rick which is my real name.. Whatever makes you comfortable is fine I guess. I'm not here to make life harder for anyone so use your best judgement....
with your comment about Deductive reasoning, I assume you are referring to me saying that nothing has been officially confirmed about Banner coming on board and nothing has been officially confirmed that Holmgren is out. If that's what your saying, of course, I agree. Haslam himself said he wouldn't discuss that kinda thing until after he is confirmed as majority owner. (however, someone found a Wikipedia thing on Banner and it shows him tied to the Browns... FWIW)
I fully expect changes, I just don't really have a clue what they will be.
Is Banner coming in as Pres and Holmgren moving to Coach? (doubtful on the Holmgren coaching thing but possible)
Is Shurmur out?
Is Heckert out?
.
Who replaces them and when does it occur if it occurs?
All speculation at this point.
My hope is that the only person in line for early dismissal is Holmgren.
My guess is that if Banner is truly the prime dawg in this place that Heckert is safe initially. It may also mean that Shurmur is as well.
What would secure Shurmur for sure is if he managed to pull off a 8 or 9 win season. if that happens, I'd be pretty upset if Haslam removed him as HC and Heckert as GM. For that matter, changing Holmgren would seem a little wrong as well.
You mention deductive reasoning and when it comes to that, the way that Haslam and his father fawned over Holmgren makes me wonder why everyone is so sure Banner kicks holmgren to the curb? unless it was just window dressing, it sounds as if they have a great deal of respect for holmgren..
We don't know what connection, or at least I don't, Haslam has with Banner!
All in all, not a damn thing you and I and everyone else discusses at this point means much.. The proof will be when we see what the team looks like at the end of the season.
7,8 or 9 wins, Shurmur and Heckert really shouldn't be gone at all.
less than 7 wins and the decision gets a bit more dicey.. But I'd think a replacement HC is in order. just a guess of course.
First time line marker is 24 hours after Haslam takes over. What's he do? Browns go O fer and I can see immeadiate beheadings. Team running .500 and all bets are off.
After that, your guess is as good as any.
Quote:
Joe Banner turned a dysfunctional organization into one of the most profitable franchises in the NFL. He is credited for being the key figure in the building of Lincoln Financial Field and the NovaCare Complex.
Quote:
he managed the salary cap in such a brilliant, precise manner, the Eagles never had to cut players or let one go via free agency simply because money got too tight.
Quote:
The one football-related job Joe had left, negotiating player contracts and managing the cap, he ceded to Howie Roseman, who was described as a "Banner guy" when he was promoted to general manager in 2010.
Isn't 2010 when they landed Vick? Or was it 2011? As your own quote states, the salary cap and player contracts was his only "football related job".
That's the funny thing about articles, each writer puts their own spin on things.
Quote:
It was once when Banner was in the middle of ambitious projects like the planning and construction of a new stadium or practice facility or the implementation of aggressive marketing programs. And it was when he was the team's only negotiator for promising young players who would become the nucleus of clubs that reached the NFC Championship Game four times in four years and five times in eight seasons.
The stadium he helped plan was a success. So was the new training facility. And the negotiations and cap management he once handled -- and handled adroitly -- had been turned over to general manager Howie Roseman, now the Eagles' sole negotiator with player contracts.
Makes sense to me. Nevertheless, there are cynics out there who will speculate that his decision to step down was linked to a power struggle he lost with Reid or who will wonder if friction with the head coach drove him to the next exit. While that makes for good copy, it's not true.
First of all, Reid always had the power here, so Banner had no power to lose. When a decision is made, it's not Joe Banner who signs off on it; it's Andy Reid. And nothing changed there.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19293...g-new-challenge
Here is a link that shows how it's Reid who hires his coaches. Once again, he's a pencil pusher. Please show how he actually hired the "football people" in Philly. He didn't from every account I can find.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-10/sports/33714716_1_todd-bowles-head-coach-steve-spagnuolo
But never mind all of that.....
I'm not trying to dismiss him. I'm simply saying we really have no idea what we'll get with the combination of Haslam/Banner.
They may be very successful but we may end up getting more of the same. I feel some have been being overly optimistic based on everything "of substance" that I've been able to find.
Banner appears to be a numbers and negotiations guy who is good with contracts. Haslam appears to be a good businessman. Those are both fine qualities to have in an organization.
But as with Lerner, we must simply hope they find and hire the right "football guys". I'm not trying to diss them because I don't know if they will or won't accomplish that.
I just don't feel, based on their resumes', that we can ASSume they will. That's all......
Quote:
I'm not trying to dismiss him. I'm simply saying we really have no idea what we'll get with the combination of Haslam/Banner.
They may be very successful but we may end up getting more of the same. I feel some have been being overly optimistic based on everything "of substance" that I've been able to find.
Banner appears to be a numbers and negotiations guy who is good with contracts. Haslam appears to be a good businessman. Those are both fine qualities to have in an organization.
But as with Lerner, we must simply hope they find and hire the right "football guys". I'm not trying to diss them because I don't know if they will or won't accomplish that.
I just don't feel, based on their resumes', that we can ASSume they will. That's all......
Oh I pretty much knew what you meant, but what I was attempting to point out was that there hasn't been an owner, (except 1 oher) to my knowledge, come along, buy a team and have a better resume than Jimmy Haslam.
I dare say that Al Lerners resume was as good or maybe even better than Haslams.
he was part owner of the Browns (I think 9 percent or something like that) so in reality, he has roughly the same resume as Haslam. Super Successful business builder, successful personal life, Successful at about anything he tried to do and he was a part owner of an NFL team for years and years prior to buying the Browns.
Clearly, that didn't qualify him to be an outstanding NFL Team Owner. Personally, I think Al was too nice a guy and got buffaloed by Carmen Policy. Then he turns it over to his son who it's clear now, didn't want it to begin with.
I keep wondering what would have happened had he listened to Kosar instead?
So, two guys, similar backgrounds, both strong business people, one was up in years and not 100 percent healthy and appeared to have a rather calm demeanor, the other is quite a bit younger, looks healthy as hell and has what I would call a outwardly firey/driven personality.
Honestly I don't know which is better,,, One didn't work, will the other?
I just don't see any reason at all to second guess it at this point. not yet anyway. he's done absolutely nothing to make me think he won't succeed.
Plenty of guys with lesser background have. I guess we'll see.
I see your point and admire your optimism. I don't think you're being over the top with it at all as I have seen with some.
I guess I see it more of the 50/50 route though.
I do give Banner a far better grade coming in than Policy but neither of them are in my mind "real football guys". More from the attorney/numbers mode.
I have hope but it is somewhat guarded at this juncture.
I haven't read anything about it, but what's the Haslem/Banner relationship?
How does the guy from Tenn/Pitt know the guy from Philly, and why do they have such a good relationship?
Just wondering.
Quote:
I haven't read anything about it, but what's the Haslem/Banner relationship?
How does the guy from Tenn/Pitt know the guy from Philly, and why do they have such a good relationship?
Just wondering.
It's been said that the League brokered the deal and I think (speculation) Banner was the man the League used as their broker.
The Good Ole Boys League never fails.
Quote:
I see your point and admire your optimism. I don't think you're being over the top with it at all as I have seen with some.
I guess I see it more of the 50/50 route though.
I do give Banner a far better grade coming in than Policy but neither of them are in my mind "real football guys". More from the attorney/numbers mode.
I have hope but it is somewhat guarded at this juncture.
Yeah,, 50/50 is about all I can give it today.. That will change as events unfold no doubt.. Which way,,, hell if I know. LOL
As for Real Football Guys.... I think if Ozzie Newsome were to buy a team, then you could say,, A REAL FOOTBALL GUY.. or Bernie Kosar, or Joe Montana.
But not one of them have the $$ to do it. I think Bernie would in a heartbeat if he had the money, but hell, he's lucky he can buy lunch the way some folks talk. (sad to say that by the way).
Bill Polian would be another guy that I'd consider a "Real Football Guy" but again, he doesn't have the dough to do it.
Now, if a guy like Haslam hired Polian, I'd have to say.. hmm.. Real Football Guy
Thing is, we don't know that isn't being talked about do we. We don't hear it, we haven't seen any rumors (I should say I haven't)
But if Haslam hired Polian and maybe even his son,,, My estimation of the possibility of success would rise.
wouldn't yours?
Quote:
I haven't read anything about it, but what's the Haslem/Banner relationship?
How does the guy from Tenn/Pitt know the guy from Philly, and why do they have such a good relationship?
Just wondering.
As Jimmy Haslam finalizes a deal to buy the Browns, only a week after news of the deal between Haslam and Randy Lerner first broke, Haslam acknowledges that former Eagles president Joe Banner has had a role in the transaction.
“We did consult with several people on an unofficial basis, and one of them was [Banner],” Haslam tells Adam Schefter of ESPN. “But we’re not going to comment on any potential hires at this time.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/03/haslam-says-banner-was-an-unofficial-consultant/
Could have been a deal brokered between Haslam and Banner from the very beginning. At least it would appear that could very well be the case here.....
Well if's and buts aren't did and he's going to....... but yes.
Quote:
I dare say that Al Lerners resume was as good or maybe even better than Haslams.
Al had a great resume. Unfortunately (like many of us on here) he got suckered into Carmen Policy's illusion. I think given time Al would have taken this team to great heights. Randy on the other hand did not buy the team. He inherited it on Al Lerner's passing. RAndy's resume was not stellar by any means.
Quote:
Quote:
I dare say that Al Lerners resume was as good or maybe even better than Haslams.
Al had a great resume. Unfortunately (like many of us on here) he got suckered into Carmen Policy's illusion. I think given time Al would have taken this team to great heights. Randy on the other hand did not buy the team. He inherited it on Al Lerner's passing. RAndy's resume was not stellar by any means.
That could be as simple as it is.. I think we also know for sure now that Randy tried to honor his father by retaining ownership for as long as he did. But I think it's pretty clear now, he never wanted it.
Lots of you guys said that all along, I couldn't accept that because I never put the "Honor Thy Father" piece together. So I thought, if he didn't want it, he'd just sell it.
Apparently I was not correct.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I dare say that Al Lerners resume was as good or maybe even better than Haslams.
Al had a great resume. Unfortunately (like many of us on here) he got suckered into Carmen Policy's illusion. I think given time Al would have taken this team to great heights. Randy on the other hand did not buy the team. He inherited it on Al Lerner's passing. RAndy's resume was not stellar by any means.
That could be as simple as it is.. I think we also know for sure now that Randy tried to honor his father by retaining ownership for as long as he did. But I think it's pretty clear now, he never wanted it.
Lots of you guys said that all along, I couldn't accept that because I never put the "Honor Thy Father" piece together. So I thought, if he didn't want it, he'd just sell it.
Apparently I was not correct.
He couldn't sell it for 10 years after his dad died.
It's now been 10 years.
Quote:
Well if's and buts aren't did and he's going to....... but yes.
LOL,, Ok,, I know.. Pipe dream, but yeah, you'd have to call the polians REAL FOOTBALL PEOPLE wouldn't you?. So hey, they get involved and you gotta give the place some instant cred.
And that's really all I've been saying all along.
Until we see who they hire and who runs the ship, we have no idea how this new owner will pan out. Even then, can we be sure at first?
When Andy Reid was hired, he had never been an NFL HC, DC or an OC. He was a positions coach. Sometimes it's not just about a name, it's about getting it right....
I dare say that some people worked wonders "in their time". Even the pencil pushers. But often as times change and the circumstances change, those same people don't always manage to change and adapt along with the times.
Often times that's why some highly regarded people seem suddenly available. Not refering to Polian per say here.....
Quote:
And that's really all I've been saying all along.
Until we see who they hire and who runs the ship, we have no idea how this new owner will pan out. Even then, can we be sure at first?
When Andy Reid was hired, he had never been an NFL HC, DC or an OC. He was a positions coach. Sometimes it's not just about a name, it's about getting it right....
I dare say that some people worked wonders "in their time". Even the pencil pushers. But often as times change and the circumstances change, those same people don't always manage to change and adapt along with the times.
Often times that's why some highly regarded people seem suddenly available. Not refering to Polian per say here.....
I get it,, we agree
Quote:
We tried to tell you the "five year plan" was a thing that walked hand-in-hand down the yellow-brick road with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, but you had your head stuck back there in the 80's.
Toad...you must be the only person on this message board that doesn't know that Holmgren and Heckert started a 5 year plan to rebuild this franchise via the draft...
...OR, you just can't tell the truth about knowing that Holmgren and Heckert started a 5 yr rebuilding.
Everyone in Cleveland knows about the 5 yr plan...but toad.
Just a week ago Holmgren referred to the 5 yr plan in Sept 4 interview where he stated the following...
CLEVELAND (92.3 The Fan) - Cleveland Browns president Mike Holmgren is hoping that he along with general manager Tom Heckert and coach Pat Shurmur will be given the opportunity to see the 5-year rebuilding plan through. web page
Toad...I believe I know why you don't want to admit the existence of a 5 yr plan...that would not fit your "agenda", would it?
I went back and read some of your posts when the Browns hired Holmgren and in the months/years after...I must say, you had a "man crush" on Holmgren and the WCO. You agreed with most of the hires Holmgren made too...
I guess you are one of those "Browns fans" that never have done anything hard in your lifetime...never done anything that required sacrifice over a period of years...such as 5 yrs. You are one of the "quick, easy fix" type who quickly jump from one idea to the next, always looking for easy and quick way out...I guess?
Well, the Browns have tried the quick and easy fix since 1999 and it didn't work out so well for the Browns...DID IT?
Quote:
Jimmy Haslam NEVER...I repeat...NEVER...said he would keep the coaches. YOU wrongly interpreted what he said to fit what you WISHED would happen.
toad...I'm not going to "spin" Haslam's words...I'm going to post them...
...from the Peter King interview...
"One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach. "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.''
So, what does this paragraph mean?
First, I'm in agreement with Haslam, that changing coaches every 2.8 years is not a good way to run a team and I totally agree with Haslam when he says making those frequent coaching changes sets the franchise back 3 or 4 yrs to regain stability.
But in Cleveland, we fans also know that it's not just the coaching changes that have hurt the franchise's ability to succeed. When owners are changing GMs and allowing changes in other areas, such as the scouting department (Butch Davis) for example...those moves come back to hurt the franchise in other ways.
While Haslam was (correctly) doing his math about changing coaches every 2.8 yrs, he should have been checking into how often the Browns make changes in the personnel department...he would have found that the Browns change GM by "exactly" the same number...every 2.8 yrs.
The Browns change GMs and coaches every 2.8 yrs ...
We have discussed this subject, the frequency with which the Browns change coaches, GM, front office, etc and I believe the fans realize "CHANGE" has been one of the enemies of Browns.
When Haslam made his comment above about changing coaches every 2.8 yrs, I thought to myself...HE GETS IT.
But now we hear the reports that Joe "freaking" Banner, the bean counter, is going to replace Holmgren. If Haslam makes that move, it will lead to many more of the people Holmgren convinced to come to Cleveland, to leave. It will be like a stack of dominos falling and in the end, Jimmy Haslam will have done exactly what he railed against with his comments above concerning "change".
Our new "truck stop owner" is going create an environment of change, proving to be a hypocrite, unable to heed his own advise.
Quote:
Our new "truck stop owner" is going create an environment of change, proving to be a hypocrite, unable to heed his own advise.
Prepare yourself people,, this will be the new "Ham Sandwich" catch phrase
Speaking of which, what ever happened to Akron Joe. did he eat some bad sushi or something?
Quote:
Speaking of which, what ever happened to Akron Joe. did he eat some bad sushi or something?
Good question. I actually started saving a file of his quotes last year so I could dust them off from time to time this season.
Just clicking.
Why are we talking about things that haven't happened yet as though they are facts?
Quote:
Toad...you must be the only person on this message board that doesn't know that Holmgren and Heckert started a 5 year plan to rebuild this franchise via the draft...
...OR, you just can't tell the truth about knowing that Holmgren and Heckert started a 5 yr rebuilding.
Everyone in Cleveland knows about the 5 yr plan...but toad.
Sure, it started out as a 5-year plan, but you were warned that after Walrus blew it with Mangini, then blew it with McCoy, and in the 3rd year essentially started over that there was no 5-year plan.
He never stood a chance of seeing it. And here we are with Holmgren calling Mayflower to pack his stuff back to Seattle...
Quote:
toad...I'm not going to "spin" Haslam's words...I'm going to post them...
No, you aren't spinning them. You're misinterpreting them.
But you've been told that repeatedly by various people. You didn't get it then and you aren't getting it now. But go ahead and play Peetey Parrot and tell yourself he said what he didn't really say. It's not going to change the true meaning of his words, which aren't what you think they say...
Quote:
Sure, it started out as a 5-year plan, but you were warned that after Walrus blew it with Mangini, then blew it with McCoy, and in the 3rd year essentially started over that there was no 5-year plan.
Toad...so you are admitting there was a 5 yr plan?...that, in itself, is progress.
... but then suddenly you say "there was no 5-year plan" because Mangini was fired and our 3rd round pick of the 2010 draft, is not a franchise QB.
If you can, post the articles that backup what you are claiming above...ok?
Toad...in 2010...Holmgren hired Heckert and together, with the approval of Lerner, they establish "a plan" to rebuild the Browns roster VIA THE DRAFT, over a 5 year period...that is what is known as, "the 5 yr plan".
The 2010 draft was the first installment of that 5 yr plan, as Heckert drafted defense, using the 1st and 2nd round picks on the defensive backfield...Haden, Ward.
Concerning Mangini...it didn't matter if Mangini stayed or was fired, because who was HC had no bearing on who Heckert drafted. Mangini lost the power to influence the draft when Holmgren took over and hired Heckert as GM.
Concerning McCoy...this idea that Holmgren "blew it" by telling Heckert to draft McCoy is pure bull...aka, "Toad spin" !
McCoy was chosen in the 3rd round, not usually a round where a team finds their franchise QB....don't you agree Toad? ...you ever hear of a team targeting their franchise QB, IN THE 3RD ROUND?
Holmgren and Heckert took a chance that McCoy might possibly develop into the Browns starting QB. If it worked out, the Browns "might" find their QB at a bargain price in the 3rd round...a slight gamble at best, with minimal investment, in terms of the draft slot.
Picking McCoy in the 3rd round did not set the rebuilding program back because the Browns didn't draft McCoy as a franchise QB. McCoy was drafted with the intention of sitting behind Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace and he would be developed over time.
McCoy ended up playing due to the two veterans being injured and they could not stay healthy long enough to take the job away from McCoy.
McCoy was drafted with the idea that the least he would be is a good backup. Also, McCoy in the 3rd round was a bargain as a backup because the Browns were paying the two veterans millions, so drafting McCoy turned out to be a good economic move the following year when Delhomme was let go.
Firing Mangini nor drafting McCoy did anything to change the plan to rebuild the Browns roster "VIA THE DRAFT", over a 5 year period.
The 5 yr plan continued in 2011, when the Browns drafted a DT and DE. In the first two drafts, the Browns had laid down the foundation for their defense.
The 5 yr plan continue in 2012 as Heckert drafted a rb, qb, rt and wr (via supplemental), laying the foundation for the offense. With this draft, the Browns have the youngest roster in the NFL, as 15 rookies were added to the roster this season.
All that is left is the 4th and 5th drafts of the 5 yr plan. Once those are completed, the rebuilding of the Browns roster, via the draft will be complete.
Quote:
o, you aren't spinning them. You're misinterpreting them.
But you've been told that repeatedly by various people. You didn't get it then and you aren't getting it now. But go ahead and play Peetey Parrot and tell yourself he said what he didn't really say. It's not going to change the true meaning of his words, which aren't what you think they say...
Try again Toad...
...from the Peter King interview...
"One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach. "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.''
Haslam is pointing his finger at the previous owners of the Browns, namely Al and Randy Lerner, claiming that their record of naming a new coach every 2.8 yrs, hurt the franchise chances for success.
I have pointed out that it is more than just changing coaches that has hurt the Browns. We fans know what goes with changing coaches...we have lived it since 1999. The management leadership changes, GMs change, coaches change.
When Haslam starts changing the team, especially the leadership of the franchise, he is no different than those he pointed his finger at, singling them out for the changes they made every 2.8 yrs, Al and Randy Lerner. Thus Jimmy "the truck stop owner" is nothing but a hypocrite, ushering in his own brand of changes.
Everyone knows, it's not just the changing of coaches that set the franchise back...it is the constant change within the organization that has destroyed the consistency a franchise needs if they are to ever win a Super Bowl.
Haslam is about to set the Browns back another 3 or 4 yrs, by the time he and HIS CRONIES get done with their changes. They will try to tell the Browns fans, their changes are different than those the franchise experienced under Al and Randy Lerner...
...to that I say...BULL.
If Holmgren goes, he will just be the first, with many more to follow...and Jimmy "the truck stop owner" will be no different than our previous owners.
Yes Toad, this FO was so set that the #85 pick in the draft would be our next franchise QB!
I thought you could tell the difference in when they were protecting the fans and lying for the sake of business?
I told you that you couldn't tell them apart.
Quote:
When Haslam starts changing the team, especially the leadership of the franchise, he is no different than those he pointed his finger at, singling them out for the changes they made every 2.8 yrs, Al and Randy Lerner. Thus Jimmy "the truck stop owner" is nothing but a hypocrite, ushering in his own brand of changes
there are 2 sides to that coin though. yeah, change hurts. it is difficult to build a team without a foundation and we not only changed the coaches but also the types of players that we needed so constantly that we never built that foundation.
however, if Haslam and whoever he brings with him (seems to be Banner) decides that they do not trust those in charge currently, then it is imperative that they root them out and put in place people that they trust. One of the key components to building a successful franchise is to have top-to-bottom trust and if we don't have that then there is not reason to "try to make that work"
if he then starts hiring/firing coaches every 3 years onwards, then yes, he is a hypocrite.
the end. finite.
Which is why Holmgren should of gotten rid of Mangini from the start.
Quote:
Which is why Holmgren should of gotten rid of Mangini from the start.
agreed. if he wasn't going to go all-in with him, then it was a mistake to keep him and the other coaches for the year. especially considering the defensive switch.
Quote:
If you can, post the articles that backup what you are claiming above...ok?
Okay, then post articles stating Haslam is a hypocrite. 
That the best you've got?
Fact: Holmgren talked about a 5-year plan.
Fact: Holmgren screwed the pooch multiple times.
Fact: People told YOU the 5-year plan was out the window.
Fact: You said there still was one.
And now while it's not fact but rather almost a foregone conclusion that Haslam is going to bring in his own people you're calling him a liar and a hypocrite.
You're common sense compass ain't exactly pointing North.
Now I'm going to ignore all the other BS rhetoric because it's all just fluff and repetitive drivel which finally ended with this sentence:
Quote:
Firing Mangini nor drafting McCoy did anything to change the plan to rebuild the Browns roster "VIA THE DRAFT", over a 5 year period.
If you honestly believe that they didn't hand McCoy the job in 2011 without competition then your minds-eye can see about as well as Stevie Wonder. If you then don't realize that him flaming out didn't immediately result in us badly reaching on an unprecedented soon-to-be 29-year old rookie QB then you're as blind as...oh yeah...covered that.
Quote:
All that is left is the 4th and 5th drafts of the 5 yr plan. Once those are completed, the rebuilding of the Browns roster, via the draft will be complete.
Blind devotion. Wow. What month is the Mothership gonna land?
Quote:
Haslam is pointing his finger at the previous owners of the Browns, namely Al and Randy Lerner, claiming that their record of naming a new coach every 2.8 yrs, hurt the franchise chances for success.
I have pointed out that it is more than just changing coaches that has hurt the Browns. We fans know what goes with changing coaches...we have lived it since 1999. The management leadership changes, GMs change, coaches change.
When Haslam starts changing the team, especially the leadership of the franchise, he is no different than those he pointed his finger at, singling them out for the changes they made every 2.8 yrs, Al and Randy Lerner. Thus Jimmy "the truck stop owner" is nothing but a hypocrite, ushering in his own brand of changes.
I wonder how many more people are going to have to tell you how flat-out blind and wrong you are before you understand what Haslam said.
Maybe DC will take another stab at it, but I won't.
This is where one of my favorite quotes applies:
If I try and teach a monkey to fly a rocket ship and it constantly fails, should I be mad at the monkey, or mad at myself...
Quote:
Haslam is about to set the Browns back another 3 or 4 yrs
From where I'm sitting, we're at the very bottom of a rebuild. We have more rookies and 2nd year guys than any team in the league. The very worst he can do is set us back one season. 
Quote:
From where I'm sitting, we're at the very bottom of a rebuild. We have more rookies and 2nd year guys than any team in the league. The very worst he can do is set us back one season.
well, I'd say that the bottom of a rebuild is having a bunch of mediocre aging veterans that are not good enough to win games.
Quote:
Which is why Holmgren should of gotten rid of Mangini from the start.
Who would he have brought in as head coach then?
I remain convinced that Holmgren's plan was to have Mangini go through the tough schedule we had in 2010, replace him with a coach of his choosing for the easier 2011 schedule, and look like a genius when the team showed so much improvement.
However, it didn't work out that way.
Quote:
Quote:
Which is why Holmgren should of gotten rid of Mangini from the start.
agreed. if he wasn't going to go all-in with him, then it was a mistake to keep him and the other coaches for the year. especially considering the defensive switch.
While this part of the subject is all opinion, to me it made sence to stay with Mangini. Most the players were still "His players" and they finished the year before strong winning the last 4 games.
The worse he could do is fail (which he did), while as someone else said the rebuild was just begining and he was replaced.
During the first year we had all our QB's go down and Colt showed just enough that they decided to give him a good look.
There was no other QB on the roster that had more upside/potential so much like Weeden this year, they give him the shot to see what happens.
I still see that as doing two things you just about completed the defense in year 2 found out that Colt is not going to morph into something great, so in year 3 start to build the Offense and it just so happened we got another QB from a previous trade.
I just dont see how those things are total failures in the overall picture of a 5 year rebuilding plan. You replace what you can, and work with whats left, each year adding to the peices.
Quote:
One of the key components to building a successful franchise is to have top-to-bottom trust and if we don't have that then there is not reason to "try to make that work"
You mean like we have right now at this moment?
Sorry I couldn't help myself 
Quote:
Quote:
One of the key components to building a successful franchise is to have top-to-bottom trust and if we don't have that then there is not reason to "try to make that work"
You mean like we have right now at this moment?
Sorry I couldn't help myself
except that Lerner apparently didn't trust himself
Quote:
Quote:
Which is why Holmgren should of gotten rid of Mangini from the start.
Who would he have brought in as head coach then?
I remain convinced that Holmgren's plan was to have Mangini go through the tough schedule we had in 2010, replace him with a coach of his choosing for the easier 2011 schedule, and look like a genius when the team showed so much improvement.
However, it didn't work out that way.
I just think that he just didn't want to make his choices out of hast and wanted that time to weigh his options on the staff he wanted to assemble.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One of the key components to building a successful franchise is to have top-to-bottom trust and if we don't have that then there is not reason to "try to make that work"
You mean like what we have right now at this moment?
Sorry I couldn't help myself
except that Lerner apparently didn't trust himself
You have a point , but for all intensive proposes that was/is Holmgren's role.
Quote:
Quote:
Haslam is about to set the Browns back another 3 or 4 yrs
From where I'm sitting, we're at the very bottom of a rebuild. We have more rookies and 2nd year guys than any team in the league. The very worst he can do is set us back one season.
Well, if he fires Holmgren & Co. then he might actually be improving the team by using the tried and true method of 'addition by subtraction'.
kinda like how we had BB here and he was building one of the stongest FO teams ever? You dont know until you know? Right? Whoops sorry that got nixed. NM a good sauce can never be cooked until its had time to simmer for just a litlle while?
Quote:
From where I'm sitting, we're at the very bottom of a rebuild. We have more rookies and 2nd year guys than any team in the league. The very worst he can do is set us back one season.
Pretty weak response, toad...nothing to back up your claim...this..
...."Sure, it started out as a 5-year plan, but you were warned that after Walrus blew it with Mangini, then blew it with McCoy, and in the 3rd year essentially started over that there was no 5-year plan.".....
This above is just the toad, making stuff up again.
Not one article to back up your claim about the 5 yr plan "starting over"
Quote:
McCoy
toad...football question...the area you like to claim superiority in... ...
...the QUESTION...in the draft, do NFL teams target 3rd round QBs to be their franchise QB?
I believe I asked you this question before...you seem to shy away from it...I will give you another chance to answer.
Quote:
Fact: People told YOU the 5-year plan was out the window.
No toad...YOU made the claim that the 5 year plan was out the window...yet the 3rd draft to rebuild this roster via the draft took place right on schedule with Heckert turning the franchise's attention toward the offense in this draft.
I gave you a link to a story just last week where Holmgren referred to the 5 year plan. The 5 year plan didn't change and is on schedule with the foundation for the defense and offense now drafted.
Honestly toad....imo, you don't even understand what the 5 yr plan is.
The 5 yr plan is not about winning x number of games in yrs 1, 2, or 3 of the rebuild...it's about rebuilding the Browns roster with young talent that will produce for years to come. It's about building something that will last and not resorting to the "quick fix" of snagging some high priced free agents hoping they will produce a winner. It's about building a foundation under this franchise that will last and produce for years to come.
Come to think of it...it's about building the Browns the way the Steelers were built.
The Browns now have the youngest roster in the NFL and these young guys will get better as they gain experience and learn under defensive coordinator Dick Jauron and offensive coordinator Brad Childress.
I have always said the payoff for the sacrifices made in the first 3 yrs of the rebuild, will begin in year 4 of the 5 yr plan.
Toad, you seem to planted in the ways of the past...the quick fix, win now stuff that the Browns tried in the 12 yrs before Holmgren and Heckert decided to rebuild the roster, beginning with the draft in 2010.
Quote:
And now while it's not fact but rather almost a foregone conclusion that Haslam is going to bring in his own people you're calling him a liar and a hypocrite.
toad...Haslam is about to make himself out to be a hypocrite if he begins making changes in the management and coaching structure of the Browns.
Like I said, Haslam had the nerve to point his finger at Al and Randy Lerner about the changes they made every 2.8 yrs...knowing he would be doing exactly the same thing when he took over.
If Haslam has the football sense to leave things alone, I will admit I was wrong....but I doubt I'm wrong.
Quote:
If you honestly believe that they didn't hand McCoy the job in 2011 without competition then your minds-eye can see about as well as Stevie Wonder.
toad...about this...Do NFL teams target 3rd round QBs to be "franchise QBs"?
McCoy played better than some expected his rookie year. 2011 was the lockout year and McCoy, not Seneca Wallace, took the initiative to hold team workouts in the absence of any OTAs.
Toad...from a management perspective, who would you have named as the starter, Seneca Wallace?
Fact is, 2011 was year 2 of the 5 yr plan and the Browns again went defense in the draft, drafting DT and DE in rounds 1 and 2.
With the 3rd year of the draft coming up in 2012, management had to find out if McCoy was capable of being "the QB", so they would know if they needed to draft a QB in the 2012 draft.
It sure as hell doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out, toad...just a little knowledge and understanding about football and how the Browns were being built, under the 5 year rebuilding plan.
Quote:
Just clicking.
Why are we talking about things that haven't happened yet as though they are facts?
You got anything better to discuss until the game starts tomorrow?
Quote:
From where I'm sitting, we're at the very bottom of a rebuild. We have more rookies and 2nd year guys than any team in the league. The very worst he can do is set us back one season.
We spendt most of the first two years re-building the D mainly counting on FA's at LB. Now we are rebbuilding the O with two young LB'ers.
It's not hard to see that when looking at the draft investents. I don't know where exactly it is that you're sitting, but it must be in one of those fuzzy math zones.
What it means mac, is once you commit to someone, you stick with them. Haslam hasn't commited and isn't commited to anyone yet.
That's where I think you're off base. Haslam hasn't hired ANYONE here.
According to what he says, once he does, it will be for the long haul.
Quote:
Quote:
From where I'm sitting, we're at the very bottom of a rebuild. We have more rookies and 2nd year guys than any team in the league. The very worst he can do is set us back one season.
We spendt most of the first two years re-building the D mainly counting on FA's at LB. Now we are rebbuilding the O with two young LB'ers.
It's not hard to see that when looking at the draft investents. I don't know where exactly it is that you're sitting, but it must be in one of those fuzzy math zones.
Toad is right about one thing though. We are at the bottom of our rebuild ... ON OFFENCE that is lol.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From where I'm sitting, we're at the very bottom of a rebuild. We have more rookies and 2nd year guys than any team in the league. The very worst he can do is set us back one season.
We spendt most of the first two years re-building the D mainly counting on FA's at LB. Now we are rebbuilding the O with two young LB'ers.
It's not hard to see that when looking at the draft investents. I don't know where exactly it is that you're sitting, but it must be in one of those fuzzy math zones.
Toad is right about one thing though. We are at the bottom of our rebuild ... ON OFFENCE that is lol.
Personally, I wouldn't call it the bottom, I'd call it the start. Means the same thing, but sounds better
Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't call it the bottom, I'd call it the start. Means the same thing, but sounds better
That would be my opinion Damon. Yes, they've had some misses in the draft just like all 31 other NFL FO's. But the people trying to say they somehow tied their future to a #85 draft pick at QB really ought to sit back and listen to themselves for a minute.
Here's a sobering thought: If McCoy had turned into a great starter and the Browns not spend the #22 pick on the oldest rookie QB in history and opened themselves up to huge criticism, would Holmgren be on the way out
Not only would we have not spent the 22nd pick in the 2012 draft on the oldest rookie QB in history, asking him to do something that has never been done, but that pick could have gone to another position of great need.
Holmgren bet his reputation on McCoy and that bet failed. The media speaks of that failure as one of the reasons Holmgren's tenure here has been anything but stellar.
There isn't any one thing that has doomed Holmgren. It's been the accumulated smaller failures which resulted in us nearly starting over in his 3rd season, though keeping Mangini was a rather sizable error in judgment.
Quote:
Here's a sobering thought: If McCoy had turned into a great starter and the Browns not spend the #22 pick on the oldest rookie QB in history and opened themselves up to huge criticism, would Holmgren be on the way out
Not only would we have not spent the 22nd pick in the 2012 draft on the oldest rookie QB in history, asking him to do something that has never been done, but that pick could have gone to another position of great need.
Holmgren bet his reputation on McCoy and that bet failed. The media speaks of that failure as one of the reasons Holmgren's tenure here has been anything but stellar.
There isn't any one thing that has doomed Holmgren. It's been the accumulated smaller failures which resulted in us nearly starting over in his 3rd season, though keeping Mangini was a rather sizable error in judgment.
Here's an even more sobering thought, where is it etched in stone that holmgren is on his way out at all?
Again, I know all the reports we've read,, Banner this, banner that.. etc.
But again, the way that Haslam and his father fawned over Holmgren and speak of him in terms that make it sound like he's their hero, which to you believe?
funny thing, having said that, I really don't have a clue if holmgren is going and if he does if it will be his choice or Haslams. I know that if he leaves, they will, out of courtesy to holmgren, make it appear to be his choice... they'll make it look like he wants to retire. (actually, he may really want to,, who knows)
I'd really laugh my butt off if everyone stays..
Quote:
But again, the way that Haslam and his father fawned over Holmgren and speak of him in terms that make it sound like he's their hero, which to you believe?
Do you really think that a man that has hardly been immersed in the business of professional football is going to publicly state that a future HOF coach sucked in his executive role and will be relinquished of his duties once the sale of the team is official? Haslam said the right things in his pressers, that's all I'm taking it as. I believe it's already been hashed out about how you can't believe what any of these guys say to the media. We all will truly know how they feel by their actions on their words.
Quote:
Quote:
But again, the way that Haslam and his father fawned over Holmgren and speak of him in terms that make it sound like he's their hero, which to you believe?
Do you really think that a man that has hardly been immersed in the business of professional football is going to publicly state that a future HOF coach sucked in his executive role and will be relinquished of his duties once the sale of the team is official? Haslam said the right things in his pressers, that's all I'm taking it as. I believe it's already been hashed out about how you can't believe what any of these guys say to the media. We all will truly know how they feel by their actions on their words.
No, I don't expect Haslam to take that tact at all., I expect that if he decides that Holmgren needs to go, he'll do everything he can to make it look as if it was holmgrens choice. haslam doesn't appear to be stupid, he's not going to get a sure HOF coach ticked off at him by embarrasing him.
No No, if he want's holmgren gone, I guarantee you, it will appear to be holmgrens decision. And maybe it won't be JUST for appearences sake, he may really wanna hang them up.
I have a funny feeling we'll never really know for sure..
I just hope Haslam can help bring the right people in to turn this franchise around into a sure fire winner and competitor. I'm tired of being the butt of everything involving pig skin.
Quote:
Holmgren bet his reputation on McCoy and that bet failed
Wow ... I guess I must have missed that statement by Holmgren declaring Colt McCoy the franchise. (not very likely) 
Quote:
Holmgren bet his reputation on McCoy and that bet failed. The media speaks of that failure as one of the reasons Holmgren's tenure here has been anything but stellar.
toad...do NFL teams target QBs in the 3rd round as being a "franchise QB"?
Quote:
What it means mac, is once you commit to someone, you stick with them. Haslam hasn't commited and isn't commited to anyone yet.
That's where I think you're off base. Haslam hasn't hired ANYONE here.
According to what he says, once he does, it will be for the long haul.
pit...it all comes out the same...
If Haslam begins changing everything by firing Holmgren and replacing him with Joe "the bean counter" Banner...making that change in the middle of the freaking season...it's just the beginning...
...then the rest of the franchise gets ripped up after the season.
It all works out the same as Haslam will have done exactly what he accused Al and Randy Lerner of doing...thus he will be 100% "hypocrite".
...and, by Haslam's own words, he will have set the Browns back 3 or 4 yrs.
It really doesn't matter whether Haslam starts by firing the coach or the President of the franchise...it will lead to wholesale changes by the time the dust settles in the spring of 2013.
...making Haslam no different than those he is criticizing.
Except Al and Randy were firing people they hired.
Haslam is the only guy who can fix this. He signs the checks.
He has been schooled in the order of the NFL universe:
You need stability at GM, HC, QB.
Until the Browns get a quarterback who can play the position at a high caliber they will remain irrelevant.
I am of the belief that there are competent HC candidates around the league maybe even Shurmur can evolve into one.
However, the key man in any organization is the talent evaluator. Players come go but every year the draft is where the future of the team exists. The man who can consistently pick talent is critical to the success of a team.
If Holmgren is the guy who blew it in the negotiations to get Griffin and forced his hand on the decision to draft Weeden in the first round? He should crawl under a mountain to hide his shame.
This year the teams performance will reflect upon management and they will held accountable.
Weeden will have to prove that he is worthy of being drafted in the first round. If he fails Holmgren and maybe Heckert will pay the price. Shurmur's fate will be tied to theirs.
Quote:
Holmgren bet his reputation on McCoy and that bet failed. The media speaks of that failure as one of the reasons Holmgren's tenure here has been anything but stellar.
You speak about it far more than the media does and here is the flaw in your theory. NOBODY, including Holmgren stakes their reputation on a #85 pick in the draft at QB. The defense was being built and he took a flyer on an undersized kid that seemed to be able to win and be accurate at the NCAA level.
For anyone to even suggest that, is laughable to say the least. You take a flyer on a kid later in the draft because your main investments are going to the D. If he pans out, that's a high draft pick later when you begin to build your O that you don't have to spend on a QB and if he doesn't pan out to be great you have your back-up at a reasonable price.
What you have suggested here does nothing to support your credability.
Quote:
There isn't any one thing that has doomed Holmgren. It's been the accumulated smaller failures which resulted in us nearly starting over in his 3rd season, though keeping Mangini was a rather sizable error in judgment.
Once again you have avoided the point. At no time in the first two drafts was the O a high priority. In the draft you claim that Holmgren was "banking on McCoy", T.J. Ward was drafted with our first 3rd round pick. Had Holmgren been "so high on McCoy", McCoy would have been the pick there to insure he wasn't selected before #85. You don't wait to #85 to select who you think will be a "sure fire bet" as your QB.
The D were the primary targets in those drafts. The only real acception was Hardesty. This is the first draft that has focused on the O. The D has been the priority until this year.
As we have seen, the D is much improved from when they got here so they have been quite successful in what they have focused on building. The jury is still out on how this draft will pan out. and yes, they had a five year plan. In years one and two the D was the focal point and as we have seen, they have had success there.
Like I said earlier, when it comes to Mangini you say they should have moved forward since they knew Mangini wasn't the answer. Then you turn around and blame when they know McCoy isn't the answer and do move forward.\ at the QB position.
Thanks for side stepping that one BTW.
We are starting over this year on O. Because this is the first year they are addressing the O. Just as we started over on D in the first two drafts. It's also the very first time we have "started over" on that side of the ball.
They built the D side first and now they're building the O side. Pretty simple for anyone looking at the facts concerning the first two drafts that is actually trying to be objective about it.
Quote:
pit...it all comes out the same...
If Haslam begins changing everything by firing Holmgren and replacing him with Joe "the bean counter" Banner...making that change in the middle of the freaking season...it's just the beginning...
...then the rest of the franchise gets ripped up after the season.
It all works out the same as Haslam will have done exactly what he accused Al and Randy Lerner of doing...thus he will be 100% "hypocrite".
...and, by Haslam's own words, he will have set the Browns back 3 or 4 yrs.
It really doesn't matter whether Haslam starts by firing the coach or the President of the franchise...it will lead to wholesale changes by the time the dust settles in the spring of 2013.
...making Haslam no different than those he is criticizing.
No mac, it doesn't. If Haslam feels this FO hasn't made the srtides it has needed to make so far, he will install his FO and coach and will stick with it.
You make it sound as though he should be stuck with Lerners people no matter what and anything other than that makes him a hypocrite.
When what he was saying is this..... Once I hire people to be in charge, it will be for the long haul and I won't be blowing things up.
It will be his billion dollars at stake here. Not Lerners. And it will be who he chooses to be in charge, whether it's some of the people already here or not, that he will be investing in to make his business here profitable, not Lerners people. And it will be those people that he will stick with for a long period of time, not Lerners.
What you are suggesting here is just silly.....
Quote:
Quote:
Holmgren bet his reputation on McCoy and that bet failed. The media speaks of that failure as one of the reasons Holmgren's tenure here has been anything but stellar.
toad...do NFL teams target QBs in the 3rd round as being a "franchise QB"?
Was McCoy handed the unquestioned starting job in his 2nd year or was he not?
First year we bring in a washed-up vet and a never-was backup to hold the fort until McCoy was ready. Second year McCoy was handed the starting job unopposed.
McCoy could have been drafted in the 5th round but as long as the situation was the same where he was given the starting job with no backup plan in place the plan was obviously for McCoy to be "the man."
Don't even try to play semantics with the term "Franchise QB." Holmgren threw his weight around to get McCoy and handed him the job on a silver platter in the exact same way Savage handed the job to Frye. Savage didn't get a pass just because Frye was a 3rd rounder, and neither will Holmgren.
All that matters is how the moves were judged. Both Frye and McCoy cost this organization a couple of years each without a real QB, and the people who put those QB's in place have and will answer for it.
The Frye move helped cost Savage his job, and the McCoy move may ultimately be part of what cost Holmgren his.
While I dont totally agree with Mac I do understand part of what he's saying. I also understand what you are saying. The real question I guess is does Haslam know what he's doing?
As Mac said he does understand that changing will set a team back 3-4 years those are the mans words he understands that. Haslem now has to decide if he needs to set this team back 3-4 years or not.
Then you also have the problem of if hes wrong in his hires how long will he stick with those people? We've lived in groundhog day for what 12 years?
After everything Ive read about Banner scares me more then any other hire Ive heard talked about. He's a true meddler that Toad says Holmgren is.
Remember how Holmgren played a bit of hard ball with Cribbs? People were calling to get the deal done. Hillis not so much but we did see how it afffects players. Thomas, deal done fast and easy, happy player.
Imagine Banner playing hard ball with Haden, Rubin, Taylor etc and bringing in a bunch of FA's. IDK the guy just scares me from what I've read as being more of a meddler then Holmgren has ever been.
For all our sanitys sake I hope it all works out and we return to glory.
No offense intended, but I think that if you sit down today and worry about what haslam will or will not do, you could easily drive yourself nuts.
There really is only two things to expect if you are to believe what the man says (AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO AT THIS POINT)
Either he cleans house, hires new folks and sticks with them
or
He sticks with at least most of what he's got.
So much depends on how the team plays. We get 9 wins,, I still say holmgren is the only guy that might be gone,..
They win 7 or less,, All bets are off..
JMHO
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Holmgren bet his reputation on McCoy and that bet failed. The media speaks of that failure as one of the reasons Holmgren's tenure here has been anything but stellar.
toad...do NFL teams target QBs in the 3rd round as being a "franchise QB"?
Was McCoy handed the unquestioned starting job in his 2nd year or was he not?
First year we bring in a washed-up vet and a never-was backup to hold the fort until McCoy was ready. Second year McCoy was handed the starting job unopposed.
McCoy could have been drafted in the 5th round but as long as the situation was the same where he was given the starting job with no backup plan in place the plan was obviously for McCoy to be "the man."
Don't even try to play semantics with the term "Franchise QB." Holmgren threw his weight around to get McCoy and handed him the job on a silver platter in the exact same way Savage handed the job to Frye. Savage didn't get a pass just because Frye was a 3rd rounder, and neither will Holmgren.
All that matters is how the moves were judged. Both Frye and McCoy cost this organization a couple of years each without a real QB, and the people who put those QB's in place have and will answer for it.
The Frye move helped cost Savage his job, and the McCoy move may ultimately be part of what cost Holmgren his.
Lol this is some funny stuff toad. Yeah when McCoy was drafted and Mike said he will not play for 3 years it was all a devious plan to get him playing in the 2nd year.
Savage was fired because he told fans to FO and was drafting horrid didnt do anything a GM is supposed to do and was out scouting. Your version is funny to read though.
The fact remains that the Browns front office handed McCoy the job last year.
Now one can argue that he showed a fair amount the year before and deserved a shot to show what he could do, but he really was just handed the job.
That was pretty much by default. Who else would you have suggested they given the starting job too?
I'll grant that .... but they never even pretended to have a competition with Wallace.
I actually agreed with that too. I thought that McCoy showed some good things in his rookie year, and deserved a shot. Last year turned me off to his game though.
Quote:
I'll grant that .... but they never even pretended to have a competition with Wallace.
Wallace already had 8 years in the league and they knew exactly what they had in Wallace already. No need to make an attempt to have a competition with someone they already knew was a career back-up IMO
Quote:
I actually agreed with that too. I thought that McCoy showed some good things in his rookie year, and deserved a shot. Last year turned me off to his game though.
Which is exactly why they handed him the job. If you are going to go with a guy, you give him your vote of confidence. He did show some positive signs in his rooie year. So they gave him last season to see if he would progress based on those signs.
After looking at those results, they decided to move on. Which is exactly the same reason Colt really didn't get a shot this year. They had already decided it was time to move on.
Quote:
The fact remains that the Browns front office handed McCoy the job last year.
Now one can argue that he showed a fair amount the year before and deserved a shot to show what he could do, but he really was just handed the job.
Who else if not McCoy last year? We where not in a position to draft one unless you want to say Dalton in retrospect.
We could have drafted someone else deeper into the draft if we had chosen to do so. However, the front office decided that McCoy was the guy based on his play the year prior. I had no problem with that, and, in fact, agreed with it.
The point is that people are complaining about Weeden being "handed the job", but that's what happened the year before as well with McCoy. The Browns could have had a competition between McCoy and Wallace fighting it out last pre-season, with the winner starting ..... but they didn't even use that pretense. Thus people should have a huge problem with handing a job to a new starter after McCoy failed so badly last year.
Quote:
We could have drafted someone else deeper into the draft if we had chosen to do so. However, the front office decided that McCoy was the guy based on his play the year prior. I had no problem with that, and, in fact, agreed with it.
The point is that people are complaining about Weeden being "handed the job", but that's what happened the year before as well with McCoy. The Browns could have had a competition between McCoy and Wallace fighting it out last pre-season, with the winner starting ..... but they didn't even use that pretense. Thus people should have a huge problem with handing a job to a new starter after McCoy failed so badly last year.
Yeah I understand that, but he had a pretty good preseason and I don't think anyone questioned his starting game one last year at that time.
Yeah, he did.
However, even if he had struggled, he was still going to be the starter. The Browns were committed to him last year, just like they are to Weeden this year.
Quote:
Yeah, he did.
However, even if he had struggled, he was still going to be the starter. The Browns were committed to him last year, just like they are to Weeden this year.
At least they pick one.
Remember the who's starting this week, DA or BQ debates?
Was that when Romeo was Coach? Didn't he flip a coin?
Quote:
Was that when Romeo was Coach? Didn't he flip a coin?
Yes. Yes he did.
Somehow that genius got another head coaching job in the NFL.
Quote:
Was McCoy handed the unquestioned starting job in his 2nd year or was he not?
Toad...can you tell everyone what Seneca Wallace did to win the starting job last season?
Quote:
Was that when Romeo was Coach? Didn't he flip a coin?
Or drew sticks 
No, it was a coin toss.
But I was pretty much toasted at the time for saying what an ameturish way that was to make a call on the starting QB and how it was no big deal and I was making far too big of a fuss about it.
Funny how time can change things.
Quote:
Quote:
Was McCoy handed the unquestioned starting job in his 2nd year or was he not?
Toad...can you tell everyone what Seneca Wallace did to win the starting job last season?
Nothing. Which is about the same as what Colt did to win it this year. I think you could make a better case for Seneca last year, than you could for Colt this year.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Was McCoy handed the unquestioned starting job in his 2nd year or was he not?
Toad...can you tell everyone what Seneca Wallace did to win the starting job last season?
Nothing. Which is about the same as what Colt did to win it this year. I think you could make a better case for Seneca last year, than you could for Colt this year.
osg...you're not toad...but you did come up with the right answer.
Wallace did nothing to win the starting job last season...not attending Camp McCoy workouts, going on the radio and stating it's not his job to mentor McCoy...a 9 year veteran in the second year of a $9 million contract, skating along.
It really was not a difficult decision for the Browns management, even if all of the above is ignored...Wallace did little to win the starting job. This season, Wallace didn't do enough to justify his $3 million salary and was cut in favor of McCoy...
...to date, I believe Wallace remains unemployed.
Like I said, the choice to keep McCoy was not difficult for the Browns management.
Wallace would have had $1 million of his salary guaranteed if he was on an opening day roster. Further, no QBs have been injured, so there haven't been openings for a veteran QB. Add in that 5 teams are running with rookie QBs, and they are all going to give those rookies every chance to succeed.
Besides, how many veteran players have been signed thus far since the season started?
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ss...t_river_defaultBEREA, Ohio -- Following the Browns' 17-16 loss to the Eagles in the season opener, Browns coach Pat Shurmur looked out during his press conference and saw new owner Jimmy Haslam and his wife, Dee, sitting with the assembled media.
Today, Haslam attended practice after meeting with Cleveland City Council this morning, and spent some time chatting on the field with Shurmur beforehand.
But Shurmur, who's off to a 0-2 start, welcomes the involvement -- and the scrutiny -- from the Browns soon-to-be new top dawg.
"He is around quite a bit,'' Shurmur said today. "He just spent a lot of money on a football team. He wants to get to know us and I admire that. I think that's good. And I encourage him, because I'm very proud of our operation. And I want him to be able to see it. I feel like we've established a relationship where we can communicate freely, which I think is good. It's got to be natural for the head coach and owner or prospective owner to be able to do that. I have a good relationship with Randy Lerner as well. I think it's pretty natural.''
He acknowledged that he needs to impress Haslam, and he knows just how to do it.
"Anybody that hires me, or anybody that's watching what we do, I want to impress them because we all work for someone,'' he said. "I understand what's important in this league, and by impressing him -- it would be by winning games.''
Shurmur addressed a number of other topics during his pre-practice press conference today:
• On the idea of Haslam exploring the possibly exploring a retractable roof: "I think there's advantages to (open air stadiums and domes). I like the setting that we present on gameday here. I'm not really trying to visualize anything at this point. Some of the charm, at least what I've experienced so far here in Cleveland, is kind of the late season wintery setting.''
• On Brandon's ball security: "He didn't have any problems with that this week, and there were times when there were guys around him swatting at it.''
• On Trent Richarson handling the ball 23 times last week: "Each guy's role goes up and down depending on the week and the game. That's a good number.''
• On Richardson playing more on third down: "Trent's an every down back. We will game-plan how we have to to get the best players on the field all the time. [Chris] Ogbonnaya was very effective for us in his role other than the fumble of course, but I felt like Obie played his role well. For a second game it was smart for us to do that -- take a little more off [Richardson's] plate. That's not to say Trent won't be out there in some third-down situations, because I think he can catch the ball and he knows how to block.''
• On tweaking the Browns' secondary: "I think we have one piece missing right now. We're trying to find the right combination, whether it be at safety or corner for us, what works. That's why you'll see different guys in there. We're just trying to find the right combination. ...On gameday, your role may (increase or decrease) and whatever your role is, you have to play it to the best of your ability and so we're looking for that right combination and I've got a lot of confidence in our defensive coaches that we'll get that right.''
• On cornerback Sheldon Brown's availability this week: "Sheldon will be in there. This is a team here, most of the time they play with three receiver sets. Most of the time we'll be playing with three corners. You'll see Sheldon in there quite a bit.''
• On Bills' running back C.J. Spiller: "He's an explosive guy. I gotta believe he's one of the fastest guys on their team if not in the league. When he gets some space, and they do a good on offense of giving their runner space, he has a chance to turn good ones into great ones and great ones into touchdowns.'' He said some it has to do with coaching "and some of it has to do with his skill and ability.''
In other Browns news:
• Tight end Alex Smith and defensive tackle Billy Winn both suffered concussions Sunday. Smith sat out practice today, but Winn participated. Shurmur said Smith is day-to-day.
• This week's game captain is center Alex Mack, chosen by the other three regular captains.
• Safety Ray Ventrone, who sat out last week, practiced today with his hand heavily wrapped. Brown (neck), also practiced.
• Defensive end Juqua Parker practiced today despite being carted off with a foot injury in Cincinnati.
jc
http://www.cleveland.com/budshaw/index.s...t_river_default: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 7:22 PM Updated: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 7:22 PM
By Bud Shaw, The Plain Dealer
Follow
John Kuntz, The Plain DealerDismay and frustration are clear on the faces of Brandon Weeden and Pat Shurmur after the Browns' rookie QB threw an interception late in the fourth quarter Sunday in the loss to the Buffalo Bills.
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Tell me again why Jimmy Haslam III should tread slowly in the name of continuity and stability?
Really now. Why? To protect and serve up one of the stalest Sunday products in the league? Cleveland doesn't just need a new sheriff in town. Cleveland needs Haslam to be Batman.
Browns' football is a crime right now. Sunday wasn't a simple trespassing by legions from Buffalo. It was full-fledged breaking and entering. As non-threatening a visitor as you'll find in the NFL, the Bills were losers of eight consecutive road games -- most by a landslide.
Cheered on by a large and emboldened travel party of Buffalo fans Sunday, the Bills walked through the front door as if they owned the place. Modeled your favorite bathrobe. Put their feet up. Popped your best champagne while the neighborhood watch dozed.
I say "your" because the youngest players on a young Browns team have only lost three in a row to start 2012. For them, the season is a puppy. You've lost nine, the longest streak in the NFL.
Losing football is nothing new here, obviously. Sunday was different. Sunday was different in the stadium clearing out before the pumpkin crop has come in. Fans checking out in September (second home game) might be a record. It's hard to remember a bigger presence by an opposing fan base so early in a season. That's a matter of geographical proximity, of course, but it was still startling.
"Embarrassing," Josh Cribbs called the scene in which Browns fans couldn't escape quickly enough and Buffalo invaders couldn't scream loud enough. "Maybe ... we need to put ourselves in the fans' shoes."
Late in the fourth quarter, receiver Stevie Johnson waved his arms to the friendly crowd of celebrating Bills' fans strewn around the stadium as if he were directing a "Tastes Great, Less Filling" commercial. By then there weren't the home fan base numbers or the inclination to drown out Buffalo's Occupy Cleveland movement. The abundance of orange in the stadium was, sadly, not rain ponchos.
View full sizeChuck Crow, The Plain DealerThe reaction of the largely pro-Buffalo fans who remained in Cleveland Browns Stadium for the final minutes of Sunday's game was easy to spot following Bryan Scott's final interception of Brandon Weeden.
"I don't like it," linebacker D'Qwell Jackson said. "I don't like it whatsoever. I've been here a long time and I've never experienced that, and it's embarrassing. It's a shame we weren't able to put out a better effort than we did."
What must Haslam be thinking? Stay the course?
The shame came in waves. Falling behind, 14-0. Pausing at halftime to acknowledge the Browns' Hall of Famers and realizing this franchise's most recent warm memories are either graying at the temples or in need of a canes.
With Buffalo coming in, and then losing its terrific running back, C.J. Spiller, this was a chance to inject less than riveting prospects for 2012 with some temporary meaning. Instead, the Browns showed up flat. A weary fan base followed their lead. Here we are 0-3 with games at Baltimore Thursday and at the defending Super Bowl champion New York Giants 10 days later.
The question: Do they win a game before Haslam takes ownership in October?
Sunday's scene is just another reminder for Haslam that he can't be as patient as Mike Holmgren and Tom Heckert were in putting this roster together. Time's a wastin'. Three years in, the wide receiver corps is Mohamed Massaquoi and a handful of projects. Tight end Jordan Cameron, one of them, stood out Sunday simply by consistently catching the ball.
The Browns may have a lot of time to turn their record around. They'll have to do it while facing a much tougher schedule and a much better lineup of quarterbacks than the roll call of 2011.
How do they turn it around?
"We win a game," Shurmur said sharply. "That's how you turn it around."
They haven't done that since Nov. 20, 2011. Before that Oct. 23. His four wins as head coach came against teams -- Miami, Indianapolis, Jacksonville and Seattle -- that were a combined 20-44 in 2011.
Shurmur is in a difficult spot, riding the arm of a rookie quarterback and what looks like a weekly audition at wide receiver.
Haslam is asking a lot of questions, making it a point to talk to fans. He didn't need to Sunday.
Their actions spoke volumes.
Sad part is we are just starting year 3 of the plan and people are acting like its year 6. I understand its another tough loss for us as fans and them as players but my gosh cant the media even try to keep a handle on things?
Im not lying missing our best CB and 1 of our top DT and a group of young players on offense this is what I expected to see all season.
If Spiller had not gone down we probably would have lost by 50.
It is what it is when playing this many young players your not going to look perfect.
Doom and Gloom media will be running crazy for the next 2 weeks.
true but in year 3 of a program you have to show progress......if you don't show tangible improvements after the 3rd year of a program, then its time to pull the plug on it...that sjust life.
if this team posts another 5, 4, 3, even 2 win season....we gotta cut bait and cast our fishing lines elsewhere....
Quote:
true but in year 3 of a program you have to show progress......if you don't show tangible improvements after the 3rd year of a program, then its time to pull the plug on it...that sjust life.
if this team posts another 5, 4, 3, even 2 win season....we gotta cut bait and cast our fishing lines elsewhere....
Really, so if you paid someone to build you something, they say it will take 5 years to get it done and they have almost built the foundation at the start of year 3 looking for the roof or even walls is kinda unrealistic. You have the floor in place.
I still dont see how anyone ever expected us to win more then 5 games with so many rookies. I also dont see where people think there is some golden move a FO could make to have changed that.
What foundation? I don't see a foundation. I see a bunch of promises and wishful thinking, but I sure don't see a foundation.
I see a team that can arguably be called the worst in the league, and we are in the 3rd year of Holmgren's regime.
There is no way to spin this.
Unless this team suddenly has a miraculous change of fortune, people better get ready for the inevitable. Haslam has no choice.
Quote:
What foundation? I don't see a foundation. I see a bunch of promises and wishful thinking, but I sure don't see a foundation.
I see a team that can arguably be called the worst in the league, and we are in the 3rd year of Holmgren's regime.
There is no way to spin this.
Unless this team suddenly has a miraculous change of fortune, people better get ready for the inevitable. Haslam has no choice.
This from the guy who told people to keep things in perspective because we are young and its going to take a while? I just dont get you sometimes.
That's because you aren't keeping the context of my quotes in mind.
I talked about keeping things in perspective and that things were going to take a while. That isn't the same as saying the fans need to give the shot-callers more time. That was about not expecting wins with this roster, and that if people became impatient and had unrealistic expectations they would be severely disappointed.
A bunch of people are exceedingly angry about what they are seeing. I'd tell them again to be patient. Am I saying that because I want them to take a wait-and-see attitude with Holmgren and this roster? No. I'm saying that because they have unrealistic expectations. If they want to expect wins, they are going to have to wait longer...and be patient...for their own good.
Look, we aren't close to being a winner. We have holes all over this roster. The injuries are a crutch and an excuse, not a reason. This team isn't going to be decidedly better with Haden and Taylor out there. We had them last year. We were bad on defense with them, and we're bad without them. We need an infusion of talent on both lines, at LB, in the secondary, and with the guys who catch footballs. Hell, there's nothing stating that Weeden is even an answer.
If a Browns fan was sitting next to me watching the game and started freaking out, I'd tell him to be patient. When he asks me why, I'd tell him the same thing I just told you, which is the same thing you're referencing:
This team was never going to win, so be patient and save your energies.
No doubt in my mind that we are a better team than last year. Yes we are 0-3. But we are a handful plays away from being 3-0. I expect to see improvement as the season progresses. And will hold judgement until latr in teh year. If we show definite improvement and win 4 or our last 5 (even if those are our only 4 wins) especially is one is against the Steelers and the team looks more prepared and Shurmur shows improved decision making then I say we run with what we have. BUT if we continue to flounder without clear steps in the right direction then I have no problem with cleaning house.
Quote:
What foundation? I don't see a foundation. I see a bunch of promises and wishful thinking, but I sure don't see a foundation.
toad...easy to understand why you don't see a foundation...you don't even recognize the 5 yr rebuilding plan.
On top of that, you have an obvious agenda...
Quote:
I see a team that can arguably be called the worst in the league, and we are in the 3rd year of Holmgren's regime.
That team is also the youngest team in the NFL in terms of NFL experience.
Quote:
Unless this team suddenly has a miraculous change of fortune, people better get ready for the inevitable. Haslam has no choice.
toad...WRONG...100% WRONG...
Haslam does have a choice...he can either make a hypocrite of himself by changing the coaching staff and front office...or stay the course knowing this team will get better each year.
Haslam pointed his finger at Al and Randy Lerner and said this, in his interview with Peter King....
One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach.
"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.''
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does Jimmy Haslam believe in what he says he learned while with the Steelers?
If Haslam makes the changes many are asking for, he will set the franchise back 3 or 4 yrs, according to his own philosophy.
One of the lessons Haslam needs to learn quickly, is to ignore the Cleveland media as well as the fans who have not a clue what building a franchise via the draft entails.
On this board, many have expectations that are unrealistic considering the experience level of the team....the youngest team in the NFL, in experience on the field.
Quote:
What foundation? I don't see a foundation. I see a bunch of promises and wishful thinking, but I sure don't see a foundation.
need more time to process this team, but the "foundation" would be the following. anyone not listed is completely expendable at best and need to be replaced soon at worst. some of those listed on the foundation need more time to prove they belong on the list (like Gordon).
offense
Thomas, Mack, Schwartz, Weeden, Richardson, Little, Gordon, Benjamin, Cameron
defense
DQ, Ward, Haden, Rubin, Taylor, Sheard
It's not a long list, but it is a list and should be players that remain with the team no matter what happens with the FO/coaching staff.
Quote:
you don't even recognize the 5 yr rebuilding plan.
mac, what level of success in that magical 5th year do you think would signify success? It's a legit question... I know we have about the youngest team in the league and I do see more talent than we have had since our return and I do see some of the cornerstones of our improvement in place... I think I fall somewhere between the "blow it all up now" people and the "don't change a thing" people... but I'd like to know, assuming we stay the course, in year 5 would you consider a successful year? Competing to get in the playoffs? Getting in and competing to go deeper? Super bowl appearance?
Can you point to where Haslem says he won't make a change? Or where he says that Pat Shurmur is his guy?
You're right that Haslem believes in consistency, however if he and Joe Banner feel that the current regime isn't good enough and won't be able to turn the franchise around they will make a change. And that hire will be important because they/he will be here for a long time and from that point on the franchise will remain consistent.
That is all I take from what he has said. Plain and simple, if Pat and Tom are not guys he feels comfortable running his team that he paid a billion dollars for they will be gone. He didn't hire them and has no obligation to keep them.
Now if he does what Mike did and keeps them for next year and then gets rid of them you can call him a hypocrite. But if he comes in and thinks this isn't the management to get us to where we need to be I don't see how you can call him a hypocrite. He has the right to put "His" people in place.
Quote:
Can you point to where Haslem says he won't make a change? Or where he says that Pat Shurmur is his guy?
Dude, don't bother.
Mac didn't understand what Haslam said when he said it.
Mac didn't understand it when myself, DC, and a bunch of others corrected him.
Mac doesn't understand it now, and what's worse, he's becoming a parrot by repeating a dead discussion.
Here's what happened. Mac twisted Haslam's words to make them say what he wanted them to be, in spite of numerous people telling him he was wrong. Mac stated that Haslam agreed with his words, which were that he would be sticking with the 5-year plan. Then something bad happened: Reports came out that Haslam would likely replace current people with his own, and suddenly Mac became embarrassed. He then stated Haslam was a hypocrite. So now Mac is on a warpath attacking the new owner because of a point he never made.
Again, Mac, you cannot be a hypocrite if you never said anything.
Here's a challenge for you, Mac: Pick out Haslam's quote, post it, and tell us exactly what it means. I'd like you to be crystal clear with what he said, what you think it means, and how it makes him a hypocrite...
Quote:
Quote:
Can you point to where Haslem says he won't make a change? Or where he says that Pat Shurmur is his guy?
Dude, don't bother.
Mac didn't understand what Haslam said when he said it.
Mac didn't understand it when myself, DC, and a bunch of others corrected him.
Mac doesn't understand it now, and what's worse, he's becoming a parrot by repeating a dead discussion.
Here's what happened. Mac twisted Haslam's words to make them say what he wanted them to be, in spite of numerous people telling him he was wrong. Mac stated that Haslam agreed with his words, which were that he would be sticking with the 5-year plan. Then something bad happened: Reports came out that Haslam would likely replace current people with his own, and suddenly Mac became embarrassed. He then stated Haslam was a hypocrite. So now Mac is on a warpath attacking the new owner because of a point he never made.
Again, Mac, you cannot be a hypocrite if you never said anything.
Here's a challenge for you, Mac: Pick out Haslam's quote, post it, and tell us exactly what it means. I'd like you to be crystal clear with what he said, what you think it means, and how it makes him a hypocrite...
For the record, Haslam hasn't said much of anything about what his intentions are regarding staff other then to say he won't say what his intentions are until after ownership is turned over to him.
He HAS said he likes consistency. But he didn't say he'd stick with those onboard now and we can't assume he'll stick with what's here. Consistency can also be described as picking HIS OWN GUYS and sticking with them.
I myself have pointed to his and his fathers positive comments regarding Holmgren as a potential tell as to what they intend to do, but we know how that works
Haslam: Mike we love you but bye
Holmgren: I didn't want to be here anyway.. pay me and I'm out the door. Let's just tell everyone that I've decided to retire
Haslam: Sounds like a plan
I should also point out that the only reports we have of Banner being involved are speculation by the press. It was reported that Banner was involved to some extent in finalizing the offer to Lerner.. But I can't seem to find out who said that. I thought it was Banner himself, but then, I can't find that either,. maybe I"m looking in the wrong place..we'll see I guess.
Here's a fact for all of you:
We don't know what Haslam has in mind because Haslam hasn't said. It appears he hasn't leaked anything to the press.
So, what can we conclude from all of this? Not a damn thing We're gonna have to settle down and wait and see.
I've said it before and I"m sticking with it, the only person on the chopping block right away (if at all) is Holmgren. If Haslam wants Heckert and Shurmur gone, he won't do it until the end of the season. And part of the decision might just be the record at the end of the year.
As dumb as this is going to sound and as improbable as this is going to sound, the Browns could still end up 13-3. If they did, do you really think Haslam would dump Heckert and Shurmur? I do not.
Hell, 8-8 probably saves their jobs to be honest and given where they started, it should.
JMO
8-8???
Quote:
8-8???
I"m not sure what you are laughing at,, the Browns going 8-8 or that record saving Shurmur and Heckert? mind enlightening me?
Your right it would save them...Im laughing at the thought of the team I saw on Sunday going 8-8.
Id say more then saving his job...coach of the year maybe?
The actually achieving 8-8 is quite obviously the source of the humor.
Quote:
Quote:
8-8???
I"m not sure what you are laughing at,, the Browns going 8-8 or that record saving Shurmur and Heckert? mind enlightening me?
I find it ironic that the king of the ROFL gets hit with one and doesn't understand the meaning behind it.
Toad...here, you tell everyone what this means...
Quote:
One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach.
"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.''
And nowhere does that suggest that he will keep Pat Shurmur. Just that the coach he decides on should get time, be it Shumur or someone else.
Quote:
We don't know what Haslam has in mind because Haslam hasn't said. It appears he hasn't leaked anything to the press.
daman...something else we need to consider...if we are talking and wondering what Haslam is going to do...so are the players.
Every player on the roster is wondering what changes are going to be made after Haslam takes over. The truth is, this change in ownership could not have come at a worse time for this young team.
I have no doubt that the players are doing all they can to perform to their coaches expectations. I also believe the players realize, come next season, they may be learning another new playbook and trying to learn another a new offensive and defensive system with a different coaching staff.
Players talk to the players on other teams, too. All the talk in the media about Holmgren being replaced by Joe Banner...the players talk about this stuff among themselves and also with the players on other teams.
You think anyone ask Sheldon Brown what this guy "Joe Banner" is like? Just a reminder, among the Eagles' players, Banner was not liked..Banner was known as the most hated man in Philly. Banner is and was a "bean counter"...trying to use his power over contract negotiations to shape the Eagles roster the way Banner wanted, not what Andy Reid wanted...that is what got Banner fired earlier this year.
Mike Holmgren is a man who can relate to the players and coaches because he played football in HS and college and coached at every level, taking two teams to the Super Bowl and winning one.
Joe Banner is a bean counter who has been in charge of negotiating player contracts and salary cap issues for 14 yrs with the Eagles. Joe Banner was never in charge of player personnel or hiring a coaching staff.
If we are talking about these issues...so are the players and coaches...
All of this landed on the team with a big thud, at the worst possible time...just before the season started...and it has to be on everyone's mind.
Many of us have discussed the issue of constant change within the franchise, knowing what it does to the franchise...we have all lived it since 1999.
Just when we thought we had some stability in the franchise...it's gone, just like that...and the constant change will continue for years to come. All of these players know it's coming...CHANGE...and they know the future is uncertain...for them and for their coaches.
...again, it has to be on everyone's mind...something else to consider when judging this very young team.
You don't know there will be change for years to come.
We just lost our 3rd game this season......8th or 9th in a row since last year.
At some point you have to see some results. I know it makes us feel good to talk about a real rebuild, but is it??
Rebuilding means getting better doesn't it?? To me it should.
Are we?? If you think so, prove it. Show me the results of our efforts.
Not saying this is what I want to happen, but this is what I think happens over the course of the offseason. I don't know if anyone gets canned during the year. That never really does any good.
I think Mike Holmgren is gone, although he will be outed gracefully.
Pat Shurmur is definitely gone.
Tom Heckert is probably gone.
Who takes over? I have no idea. I couldn't even give you a solid guess.
I also think this is probably Josh Cribbs' last year in Cleveland, probably Fujita as well.
As far as everyone else, I think the majority of guys who see significant time will stick around. They're all young, and with few exceptions these guys aren't injury prone, as far as NFL'ers go.
I think Pat has really handled himself well. I honestly don't care how he answers questions, or if he bores reporters, I don't think he should be graded by that, and I think it's stupid when other people do.
He's had a good mentality, but it would take a miracle for him to save his job.
If and when we change coaches, can we please get this right? How about a guy with better experience? I see nothing wrong with a first time coach, but he should have more, and better experience than Pat Shurmur did coming in.
I know people want continuity for the sake of continuity, because we see it in the rest of the AFCN, but you have to stop making horrible decisions on people to run this team.
You can't just keep a guy to keep a guy because you "are tired of blowing it up every few years"
How's continuity working for the baseball organization down the street.
We may or may not have the right bricks but our mortar is still very soupy.
Quote:
How's continuity working for the baseball organization down the street.
Ouch!
Spelled "Holmgren" wrong. It's "H-O-L-G-R-E-M".
my favorite part was that Palmer was so bad that we don't even blame him for it (at least that's how I read it)
Quote:
Spelled "Holmgren" wrong. It's "H-O-L-G-R-E-M".
I see what you did there...
Quote:
Toad...here, you tell everyone what this means...
Quote:
One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach.
"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.''
No, YOU tell us what it means.
You've moaned and groaned and bellyached and bitched about what YOU think he's saying, so please, enlighten us all by telling us exactly what it is that Haslam is saying, and why YOU say he's a hypocrite.
I think you're backed into a corner and are trying to squirm out. Well too late on that, buddy, because you're going to be held accountable and answerable to your words.
If you so desire not to answer, then I sure as Hell don't wanna ever hear how Haslam is a hypocrite again out of you.
You've used that term to death. Now you have to answer for it, or you have to shut your yap.
Now you do have an out, but it'll still mean you have to admit you're wrong. The only way you can squirm out of this one by saving even a little face is to admit he wouldn't be a hypocrite, but rather you are just upset with him if he doesn't follow your fantastical and mystical 5-year plan.
So think very clearly and choose your words even more carefully...
I figured this fits well here.
web page
Quote:
Bottom line? This team has as many holes as it did when Holmgren took over.
I'm no Holmgren fan but that's so BS...when he took over he had JT, Mack, Rubin and an injured (missed 2 seasons, career seemed to be over) Dqwell as AVG or better players....I mean, THAT was all...which in return means we needed 18/19 new starters AND depth that was old as fart thanks to Uncle Eric's "process"
Anybody thinks we need over 18 new starters today? I come up with 6 or 7 at best: FS, CB, OLB, DE, TE, FB and G...let's give the doubters WR and QB too and we're at 9
We're currently missing 3 of our best D players in Haden, Taylor and Gocong, so the lack of depth gets exposed too
and if this article comes up with Hardesty and Marecic as biggest "busts" in 3 drafts then Heckert did a great job as both were 3rd+5th and late 4th investments respectively...maybe the author should check on some of the "great teams" and look how many "busts" they've picked MUCH earlier...for me a "bust" is a failed Top 50 selection....pretty much everything after that, and most drafts after top 20-30 picks already, are boom/bust prospects or decent, overachieving College players with marginal ceiling
The players the coaches and the FO should all be wondering what will happen when haslam takes over.
BUT, they have the ability to fix it. Win and it's funny how problems seem to disappear.
Haslam has said the same things that every GM, every President, Every Coach and every player has said in the last 13 years.
We're gonna fix this thing and get on a winning track.
Not a damn thing new in what haslam is saying then what anyone that has come before him has said.
The only things that make me think maybe,, just maybe he can do it, is he's run a very successful business and he's sat at the table and listened and watched what a sound football operation is run like.
Another positive is, he essentially left his job, hired someone to do it and the expectation is he'll spend more time here. That may be a demonstration of his commitment to the Browns.
He admits to NOT being a football guru. So, to be successful, he needs to have people run the organization that know what they are doing and then stand back and watch with your finger on the pulse. Be in the public eye to an extent etc.
The question is, who are those people he'll bring in,, the ones we have, Banner and the folks he brings in?
The team can go a long way to ending speculation on some of those things,, Just win and that will be that.
Quote:
No, YOU tell us what it means.
toad...not a problem...just for you...
First, Haslam is being...critical and judgmental of the "coaching merry go round" in Cleveland, since the team returned in 1999, going as far to name each coach the Browns have had since 99.
Haslam "did the math" and pointed out the Browns change coaches every 2.8 yrs and Haslam concludes..."it's not a good recipe", Haslam says...which means IT'S BAD TO CHANGE COACHES EVERY 2.8 YRS.
It should also be noted who Haslam passing judgement on...Haslam is criticizing Al and Randy Lerner...it's the owner who makes the final call to change coaches.
Second paragraph..as a minority owner of the Steelers, Haslam learned the "importance of consistency in coaching" and "it sets a team back" when they are changing coaches often.
Haslam goes as far as putting a number on how far it sets a team back if they change coaches...it can set a team back 3 or 4 yrs if they make a coaching change.
Now, concerning "hypocrisy"...IMO, if an owner criticizes and judges another owner because they changed coaches too often (2.8 yrs), then the first thing the new owner does is change coaches...that "is hypocrisy" at it's best.
In the simplest terms...if NFL owners do xyz...it's bad and sets the team back.
We have to wait to see what Haslam does...does he set the team back by changing coaches?...or...does he try to promote consistency by not changing coaches?
NOW TOAD, YOUR TURN...what does this mean...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach.
"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.''
So what?
He judged critically the coaching and management merry go round,
I don't see where that means he's sticking with what's here any more than it means he's tossing out everyone and starting over.
Like I said, It don't mean a thing.
I see us as legitimately needing one more (meaning one more NFL PLAYER) at each of these positions before we start being competitive:
S, CB, OLB, DE, WR, G, TE
And of course QB is up to debate obviously (I'm in the group who believes Weeden will never be the answer).
Quote:
I see us as legitimately needing one more (meaning one more NFL PLAYER) at each of these positions before we start being competitive:
S, CB, OLB, DE, WR, G, TE
And of course QB is up to debate obviously (I'm in the group who believes Weeden will never be the answer).
Funny thing, people said that same thing about Brett Favre...LOL Difference, brett was much younger and had time to develop. Weeden doesn't have that kinda time.
To be brutally honest, I actually do think Weeden has the arm and potential accuracy to make it in this league. However, there is one part of his game that is his biggest drawback: his feet. He has terrible feet ... like worst in the league awful. He cannot extend plays or shift in the pocket. He is basically a statue after the snap. This is all well and good when the pocket is perfect, but it rarely is.
I guess what I'm saying is ... Weeden's a stiff.
Quote:
All that tortured Browns fans can hope for is that Haslam realizes that the current plan isn't working and takes immediate steps to fix it.
peen...above, from the article...
Anyone that expected the Browns to instantly become a winning team with a rookie QB, RB, RT, 2 Wrs is suffering from "unrealistic expectations".
Same thing on this board...the sky is falling, the sky is falling...doom and gloom...factory of sadness...what did you expect from this team?
Browns fans have to blame someone...because they do not have the common sense to realize what building a team via the draft entails.
The Browns drafted for defense the first two years of the rebuild and drafted for offense this season. Now the players drafted on offense have to gain enough NFL experience to win.
Problem in Cleveland, they never see a plan through...Haslam got that right.
I'll tell you what it means to me. He is being critical of a person hiring a coach and only sticking with a system for 2.8 years and then blowing it up. Obviously that isn't a recipe for success.
However, Haslem didn't hire the current regime. They are not his guys. So (IMO) what he means in his comment is that once he gets his guys in place they will be here for a long time and we are going to stick to a plan/system/regime/coach.
And I'll say this, if the Browns are winless when Haslem takes over, Pat and Mike might be gone on the same day.
Quote:
I'll tell you what it means to me. He is being critical of a person hiring a coach and only sticking with a system for 2.8 years and then blowing it up. Obviously that isn't a recipe for success.
However, Haslem didn't hire the current regime. They are not his guys. So (IMO) what he means in his comment is that once he gets his guys in place they will be here for a long time and we are going to stick to a plan/system/regime/coach.
And I'll say this, if the Browns are winless when Haslem takes over, Pat and Mike might be gone on the same day.
+1 Why is this logic even debated? Haslem will put into place what he feels is a winning organization and then he will be patient and let them succeed.
Quote:
To be brutally honest, I actually do think Weeden has the arm and potential accuracy to make it in this league. However, there is one part of his game that is his biggest drawback: his feet. He has terrible feet ... like worst in the league awful. He cannot extend plays or shift in the pocket. He is basically a statue after the snap. This is all well and good when the pocket is perfect, but it rarely is.
I guess what I'm saying is ... Weeden's a stiff.
Could be.. for me he's way to new to rate. See some really good stuff, then I see some really bad stuff. But that's always the way it is with Rooks no matter what age they are.
SO he could turn out to be Brett Favre or Joe Schmo..
Quote:
I see us as legitimately needing one more (meaning one more NFL PLAYER) at each of these positions before we start being competitive:
S, CB, OLB, DE, WR, G, TE
And of course QB is up to debate obviously (I'm in the group who believes Weeden will never be the answer).
when I first saw this list I was thinking you could probably take TE off that list.
CB we will know for sure if any of our young guys start getting it with all the playing time they are going to get.
Heden being out and Brown finally moving to the nickel really hurt us at that pos.
I like our young LB's, now are they going to be great or just excellent depth remains to be seen.
Gordon is raw at best but has the talent. Still hes going to need a year. Mo Mass has finally started to show he can play. Benji also looks like hes a legit NFL WR.
I feel if Little can stop dropping balls we could have a reatlly strong WR core.
These kids just need time and we will know alot more about them at season end then today for sure.
The real problem with your list is, for the most part if we are picking top 3 most those positions are not T3 worthy picks. QB would of course be.
I could debate that the plan is working, because our needs are slowly moving farther down in the draft.
Now someone asked about should be expected of the plan. I honestly expect us to make a huge jump next year. The jump everyone wants to see. Somewhere in the 7-10wins range. The year after that which would be the actual start of year 5 I would expect to contend for the playoffs and beyond.
After that we just add the pieces where needed to be hunting for our Superbowl.
I feel like we are 2 years away from being where Houston was last year.
So let me ask you this, do you see the same lack of athleticism that I do?
The WR is the one area that I was hoping to see a lot of improvement this season. I'll agree that MoMass has stepped up his game, but Gordon looks completely lost .. and Little appears like he will always be inconsistent. WRs like that (who struggle to catch it) rarely improve.
Fun fact: Weeden is only 4 months younger than Derek Anderson.
Quote:
Now, concerning "hypocrisy"...IMO, if an owner criticizes and judges another owner because they changed coaches too often (2.8 yrs), then the first thing the new owner does is change coaches...that "is hypocrisy" at it's best.
In the simplest terms...if NFL owners do xyz...it's bad and sets the team back.
We have to wait to see what Haslam does...does he set the team back by changing coaches?...or...does he try to promote consistency by not changing coaches?
NOW TOAD, YOUR TURN...what does this mean...
So it's your position that no matter what, Haslam is obligated to retain the coaches from the regime hired by a previous owner? Regardless of their outcome and production? Solely based on the fact Haslam stated only that changing coaches coincides with losing games?
I think your nuts. 
All his statement is saying is that changing coaches represents constant losing.
What it DOESN'T say is that teams lose because they constantly change coaches.
Something else that it does not say is that he intends and promises to keep the previous regime.
You're going to hold him to a word that he hasn't spoken. That's BS.
Quote:
I'll agree that MoMass has stepped up his game...
Yup. Right where he always steps it to... The training table.
F R A G I L E.
But at least this season he showed some signs of life and consistency through August and September. He used to seem to take plays off and seem disinterested.
Quote:
To be brutally honest, I actually do think Weeden has the arm and potential accuracy to make it in this league. However, there is one part of his game that is his biggest drawback: his feet. He has terrible feet ... like worst in the league awful. He cannot extend plays or shift in the pocket. He is basically a statue after the snap. This is all well and good when the pocket is perfect, but it rarely is.
I guess what I'm saying is ... Weeden's a stiff.
Are his feet that much worse than Bernie's or Marino's?
As for needs, I think that we definitely need a starting FS and one starting offensive guard.
We might need, a second offensive guard and a strong safety. Additionally we need some Wr to step up regardless I would personally like to see us get and established veteran (even if over the hill) to come in and head the receiver room. At Lb I like both Robertson and Forte and would like to see them get more playing time. I think they have done better than Fujita/Maiava so far this season. With good playing time this year for them we might be able to scratch Lb off our list.
I am okay with us at TE and CB (when Haden is available) but would not be opposed to an upgrade. We are solid on the D-line but I would LOVE to add a premier RDE.
Upgrade at FB is a given and of course Qb is yet to be determined. If Weeden is a complete flop we will be drafting high enough to get out choice of QB in the draft. I think at this particular point in time I am leaning toward EJ Manuel from FSU but the college season is early. Regardless, I am NOT a Barkley fan at all.
Quote:
Fun fact: Weeden is only 4 months younger than Derek Anderson.
At this point in his career, DA is the best NFL comparison for Weeden. He makes a jaw dropping throw every once in a while, he's very good at hitting the deep slant in stride, his touch and accuracy on dump offs isn't very good, his throws over the top have been awful, under the right circumstances he can lumber for some yards but on most plays his mobility is a liability, and in crunch time he forces bad throws.... it's only been 3 games but that's what I've seen.
I do think Weeden is smarter and has more upside and that DA hit his ceiling in 2007
Quote:
DA hit his ceiling in 2007
And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.
Quote:
Quote:
DA hit his ceiling in 2007
And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.
That isnt funny...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
DA hit his ceiling in 2007
And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.
That isnt funny...
No it wasn't in 2008.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
DA hit his ceiling in 2007
And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.
That isnt funny...
No it wasn't in 2008.
that cliff was the last few games in 2007
It was almost the entire 2nd half of 2007, actually.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
DA hit his ceiling in 2007
And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.
That isnt funny...
No it wasn't in 2008.
that cliff was the last few games in 2007
True, but in the minds of many fans, we still held out hope that he would return to early 2007 form ... as we know now that wasn't the case and we where ready to push him off of that cliff.
DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
Quote:
It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
For the most part they already have. Jump the slant routes, get pressure, dare him to beat you over the top.
Quote:
DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
I think that's true with any new starting QB ... they have to learn to change it up and come off of their tendencies on occasion. Play calling can help improve this too.
DA's could not over come his poor accuracy and touch on the shorter passing routes. I think that he never learned to shake his tendencies either.
Imo Bradon Weeden is going to prove to be better at both. Tendencies? Only time will tell.
Weeden is a rookie ... DA was not a rookie in 2007, yet had worse decision making skills than most rookie QB's.
Weedens decision making has been poor at times (as often times rookie QB's are) and we need to look no further, then his interceptions. Some times you need to challenge the defense though and give your receivers a chance too.
I think that he needs to learn to just throw the ball out of bounds whenever his RB/FB are covered in the flat. Not much good will likely come from the play, but the consequences can amount to a gimmie pick 6 for the defense.
With that said Trent needs to run a better route too ... one that's not so parallel with the LOS.
Marecic Meh!
Weeds is still a rookie and I think that he is still thinking too much. That is not helping his timing with our receivers.
These are the things I'll be looking for improvement from week to week with Brandon Weeden.
"Jimmy" Haslam
Quote:
DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
it's a constant yo-yo in the NFL. early last year Cam was just chucking it deep, so defenses adjusted. he eventually adjusted taking more underneath stuff and running, but didn't play as well. this year, they adjusted again and he hasn't been good at all.
could also point out how defenses are just daring GB to run or how they are taking away the underneath stuff to Brady in NE. you have to constantly move or you will fail in the NFL.
Quote:
Quote:
DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
it's a constant yo-yo in the NFL. early last year Cam was just chucking it deep, so defenses adjusted. he eventually adjusted taking more underneath stuff and running, but didn't play as well. this year, they adjusted again and he hasn't been good at all.
could also point out how defenses are just daring GB to run or how they are taking away the underneath stuff to Brady in NE. you have to constantly move or you will fail in the NFL.
If any team can adapt to changes based on what defenses are doing it would be NE. The Mad Scientist will come up with a plan. He always has and like always the League will find away to take that away too, but it's really hard to evenly take everything away at once. Something is always there for the offense to try and exploit. Executing it properly is another matter.
Quote:
DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
It's my opinion that Weeden will get better. I've never thought he was a 1st round worthy QB, hence all my comments about him being a bad gamble as early as they took him. However, there are tools and accuracy there that should come out. He's never seen what the NFL is throwing at him and it's showing. To put it simply, Weeden is playing accurately to his scouting report, at least how I and many others viewed him.
From what I've seen this year, it kinda looks like this:
Positives:
Accurate on short-intermediate throws when given time
Willing to step up in the pocket and throw without looking at the rush
Has shown some progressions in reads
Doesn't throw ducks (yeah, that's a positive because of how many "starters" we've had that couldn't throw a freakin' football)
Has shown some pocket awareness
Negatives:
Very inaccurate on the deep ball regardless of pressure
Staring down primary receivers and throwing to them regardless of coverage
Terrible throws when pressured
Predetermining where he's going to throw the ball before making reads
Folding badly when behind and pressured to produce
Holding the ball too long which will lead to unnecessary sacks and fumbles
Poor accuracy when forced out of the pocket
Now I'm sure some folks would get more detailed or nit-picky, but to my eye that covers most of it with him. Those negatives are symptoms of the system he played in at the college level as well as the talent level he faced. It's very much what I spoke of when saying he had "Brady Quinn windows" to throw through. Weeden can look like a 1st round QB when he's got a nice pocket and his 1st reads are open and the timing is right. But during the times in college when he was pressured, he lost his decision-making and accuracy. He also didn't show great accuracy on deeper throws in college regardless of the pressure. Part of that he wasn't asked to do it as much, and when he did, his receivers (mostly Blackmon) bailed him out.
Weeden was only going to get so good in college. He has to face REAL pressure if he's going to get better. I'm encouraged by his courage to stand in the pocket and keep his eyes downfield. I'm encouraged by what I believe to be his ability to know where to go with the ball, which means reading defenses. The question with that will be whether or not his mind can determine quickly enough whether or not he should make the throw and find his second or third read. I believe he'll learn to develop the clock in his head, which he doesn't have right now. He never had to use that in the flag-football league he played in at OSU.
These things are why I called him a developmental QB, and why I thought they reached badly on him. That's not necessarily a slam because not every QB can be NFL-ready like Luck or Manning or even RG3. I had Weeds in there as a developmental guy with Tannehill, and so far both guys have flashed the skills but both are over-whelmed right now.
Weeden has always had the tools, which is why I always said at least he's not McCoy. The tough part with Weeds is whether or not at his advanced age he'll have enough time to develop into a quality starter. I fully expect him to make some strides this year as he is forced to grow more quickly than he ever did in college. I just don't know whether or not he's going to overcome what I felt was his biggest negative in college, which is how he folds up when pressured. Some say "every QB is pressured in the NFL" but that isn't the problem. Yes, the numbers for every QB in the history of the league go down when the pressure goes up, but the good QB's in the league make higher percentages of good plays and lower percentages of negative plays than the bad QB's. The one's that never make it can't. Will Weeds get past his tendency to blow it when pressured? I see flashes that make me think he can, but I sure as Hell won't predict it.
To me, all the rookie QB's are playing exactly how I expected them to play, except for Wilson. I had no clue he'd be this good. I always thought Luck was a little over-hyped. I had believed RG3 would be a great passer but would fumble quite a bit until he learned the league. Of course I also think he'll miss time due to injuries but that's for another discussion, hehe. I thought Tannehill wasn't nearly ready to start and should sit a year, but the Fish felt otherwise. Whoops. And I thought Weeds would struggle with things that he's never seen in the NFL, and he has.
It wouldn't behoove anyone to make snap-judgments on Weeden this year. Yeah, I know what my sig says, but that's a slam on how highly we took him and all the pre-season over-the-top positive hype he received. He's going to struggle but at least he's shown flashes of being a top-flight starter. We didn't have to gamble so highly with where we took him, and it looks to be too late for this regime as they dug their own graves. However, Weeds has the makeup and tools to get the job done. It's all going to come down to two things: His accuracy on the intermediate-to-deep stuff and how he handles pressure.
Quote:
Quote:
It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
For the most part they already have. Jump the slant routes, get pressure, dare him to beat you over the top.
Connecting on those deep routes will open the play book for Weeden and our offense though. We can't give up on it.
Quote:
Quote:
It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.
For the most part they already have. Jump the slant routes, get pressure, dare him to beat you over the top.
It isn't so much as the"book ' on Weeden,as it is the book on the WCO.Getting pressure and taking away the slants,easier said than done of coarse,was the blueprint on how to beat the 49ers back when.
j/c
The goal to beating every single QB in the NFL is getting pressure on them. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Weeden only problem. All QB's fail under pressure most of the time, be it a sack, and incompletion, or an INT.
Weeden has been better than I expected him to be. He forces some throws, but his ball has been right on the money for the most part. When he starts hitting the deep pass, he'll really open up the game.
Quote:
j/c
The goal to beating every single QB in the NFL is getting pressure on them. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Weeden only problem. All QB's fail under pressure most of the time, be it a sack, and incompletion, or an INT.
But that doesn't fit with the anit-Weeden/McCoy fanboy crowd...and Toad.
I mean, after all, McCoy has whhhheeeeeellllllsssss!!!! ... to handle the pressure.
Quote:
That isnt funny
Were not laughing.....We take this serious....we werent laughing,....this isnt funny....we work hard all year, nobody was laughing....what I've heard this somewhere....?
Quote:
The goal to beating every single QB in the NFL is getting pressure on them. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Weeden only problem. All QB's fail under pressure most of the time, be it a sack, and incompletion, or an INT.
It's not but more experienced QBs will make you pay for blitzing to get pressure once in a while, thus far we have not. There is supposed to be a RISK associated with blitzing, otherwise teams would do it on every play. Thus far we have not been able to capitalize on that.
Quote:
Quote:
The goal to beating every single QB in the NFL is getting pressure on them. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Weeden only problem. All QB's fail under pressure most of the time, be it a sack, and incompletion, or an INT.
It's not but more experienced QBs will make you pay for blitzing to get pressure once in a while, thus far we have not. There is supposed to be a RISK associated with blitzing, otherwise teams would do it on every play. Thus far we have not been able to capitalize on that.
So maybe expecting a rookie... Naaaaah...
toad...yes I'm holding Haslam to his word...why shouldn't I ?... because he didn't mean what he said about the importance of consistency in coaching or he wasn't really being honest about what he learned while a minority owner of the Steelers?
I believe Haslam to be a man of his word until he gives me reason to believe otherwise...
NOW TOAD, YOUR TURN...what does this mean...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach.
"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.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
toad...yes I'm holding Haslam to his word
Which word?
The one about wanting to bring a winner to Cleveland? (what exec, gm, coach hasn't said that in the last 13 years)
The one about wanting to build through the draft? (that's already the direction we are heading)
The one about wanting continuity in management and coaching? (what he didn't say is which management and coaching staff he'll stick with, the current one, the one he'll choose or a mix of both)
The one about looking at every angle to use the stadium more up to and including perhaps adding a dome? (not a big dome fan, but you know, the more I think about it, the more I realize we paid a bundle for that building, we should receive more benefit from it,, so go dome if you gotta)
The one about being more visible in the community? (as long as he doesn't turn out to be a baffoon like Snyder, I'm good with that)
The one about being more available to the press about the team?(read the comment above)
The one about moving (at least part time) to NE Ohio? (I'd hope so, but it doesn't matter where he lives to me, just get it right this time)
Haslam has said a lot of things. To date, the only thing he's ACTUALLY done that I applaud is setting up a meeting with a group representing city council. that to me, was a smart move.
I guess there is one other thing he's done that I admire.. He's made it clear over and over again, he doesn't own the team yet and until he does, he'll say nothing. I appreciate his sense of propriety.
Quote:
toad...yes I'm holding Haslam to his word...why shouldn't I ?
Mac, I was ready to let this one go, but I suppose that wasn't ever possible
Why shouldn't you hold him to his word you ask...
It dawned on me exactly what's going on here. If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path. You'd be acknowledging the idiot-proof point that every fan in the world understands, which is that if you have a perennial losing team part of that equation is that you're also going to have a merry-go-round of coaching changes, then you'd leave it there. But no, that isn't what you're doing.
You think you're slick. But you can't outfox a fox.
You've SPUN Haslam's words to mean what YOU want them to mean. What YOU want them to mean are that he's now locked-in to keeping Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, and all the rest because that's what YOU want him to do. If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune.
It's a cute trick but it fails, as so many have already pointed out to you.
You show me one quote where he says clearly and plainly that he intended on keeping Mike Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, or any combination of coaches and FO people. Until you can do that, you've got nothing but spin and this little game of charades is exposed for what it is.
Repeatedly quoting Haslam's words over and over do nothing for you when those words don't really say what you WISH they'd say...
I can't believe this little argument is still raging...
Quote:
toad...yes I'm holding Haslam to his word...why shouldn't I ?... because he didn't mean what he said about the importance of consistency in coaching or he wasn't really being honest about what he learned while a minority owner of the Steelers?
I believe Haslam to be a man of his word until he gives me reason to believe otherwise...
NOW TOAD, YOUR TURN...what does this mean...
It means he wants to maintain consistency with the staff... what it does not say or necessarily mean is that he wants it with THIS staff.
If I have a girlfriend... and my grandma asks me what I want out of life and I tell her that I want to get married, have kids, and have it last forever.... that doesn't necessarily mean that I plan to marry my current girlfriend....
Mac - I wouldn't hold Haslam to keeping someone else's mistake as our head coach. If he comes in and fires Shurmur I would not consider that breaking his word about consistency. If he sees a bad HC and replaces him then turns around and fires that guy in 2-3 years then yes I will agree with you. But if he replaces Shurmur and keeps the new HC for a decade then I would consider that be true to the quoted statment.
Quote:
and my grandma asks me what I want out of life and I tell her that I want to get married, have kids, and have it last forever.... that doesn't necessarily mean that I plan to marry my current girlfriend....
According to Mac's logic that means you intend on marrying your grandmother
Mac understands. He FULLY understands. He doesn't need it to be explained to him. He knows quite clearly what he's doing, and that has nothing to do with what Haslam truly said.
Mac doesn't want Holmgren fired, so he's using that as a reason to take shots at Haslam. If he wanted Holmgren and Co. gone he wouldn't be singing this tune.
There's being ignorant and not understand something, then there's pure manipulation, spin, and deceit. Mac is quite clearly going for the latter...
Quote:
It means he wants to maintain consistency with the staff... what it does not say or necessarily mean is that he wants it with THIS staff.
Ding ding ding...we have a winner....
Quote:
Mac doesn't want Holmgren fired,
Neither do I really, but that doesn't prevent me from knowing what he meant.
Quote:
I can't believe this little argument is still raging...
Why not? It's between two guys who will never admit they might be wrong.
Hell, this baby will still be going on when Haslam appoints his son team president in 15 years......
Quote:
If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path.
Toad...no, I don't "hate" Holmgren...that you got right.
I will say, your opinions of Holmgren seem to fueled by "hatred"...maybe to the point that it is clouding your common sense and logic. You are one of those fans who need to blame someone if the team is not an instant winner
Quote:
You think you're slick. But you can't outfox a fox.
Toad...no, I'm not trying to be slick...just using good football (common) sense that is not fueled by or clouded by "hatred" and "emotion"...
"Change" is the enemy of the Browns
Quote:
You've SPUN Haslam's words to mean what YOU want them to mean.
No toad, I did not spin Haslam's words...and I have given you several opportunities to interpret Haslam's words...here, try again, tell us what this means....
.................
"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.''
................
I agree with Haslam on this point and believe the near constant state of change the Browns have been in since 99 have contributed to the teams failure to win.
Al and Randy Lerner had "rabbit ears" and reacted to the fans and media, which was the last thing they should have been doing because the fans and media are reacting based on "emotion" and not thinking about what is best for the franchise, long term.
Many have argued, if Chris Palmer had been allowed to coach the Browns longer than two seasons, the team and Palmer would have developed into a winning coach and the Browns into a winning franchise.
Haslam is 100% correct, emphasizing the need for consistency in coaching and how much it sets a team back when a new coach takes over.
Quote:
What YOU want them to mean are that he's now locked-in to keeping Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, and all the rest because that's what YOU want him to do. If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune.
Toad...that is the second time you made the comment, "if I hated Holmgren"...you did include "and the rest"...but why do you feel I should hate Holmgren?
When one allows emotion to drive their opinions, many, many times those opinions are not based on sound logic.
I do believe this is a classic case of a Browns fan looking for someone to blame, because things have not gone the way he wanted. Most of the Sports media around Cleveland try to take advantage of the fan emotions to make their own emotional push for something different...
I sincerely hope Jimmy Haslam does not have "rabbit ears" !
Quote:
You show me one quote where he says clearly and plainly that he intended on keeping Mike Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, or any combination of coaches and FO people. Until you can do that, you've got nothing but spin and this little game of charades is exposed for what it is.
I believe Haslam when he says he learned the need for consistency in coach, while the minority owner of the Steelers.
It really is not a difficult principle to understand or learn if you study the Steelers' history...the Steelers had decades of failure, making the playoffs one time in their first 34 seasons in the NFL and they changed their head coach every other year or so.
Over the last 44 yrs, the Steelers have had " 3 " head coaches and have made the playoffs 26 times, played in 8 Super Bowls, winning 6 SBs.
Over those 44 yrs, it didn't matter if the team had a losing record or not, the Steelers owner kept the same head coach. The Steelers organization did not change the rest of the franchise either, because the need for consistency goes beyond just the HC...I'm confident the Steelers owner learned that lesson about the same time they learned to keep their HC, regardless of the teams record.
Consistency in the organization trumped the urge to change, because the fans or media believed it was time to change. The Rooney family tuned out the media and those emotional fans who were crying for change because they couldn't stand a particular season or two of disappointment...that Browns fans, is leadership from an owner...at least the last 44 yrs of the Steelers history.
It seems they have learned the Rooney family secret in Cincinnati too...Marvin Lewis has been the HC of the Bengals for 10 yrs now, regardless of the teams record. They seem to be a franchise on the rise, making the playoffs last season.
Hopefully Haslam can teach the fans and media in Cleveland what he learned while minority owner with the Steelers...that no matter how much they yell, scream, cuss and fuss...he is not going to listen to them, because he knows the need for "consistency" trumps the emotional calls for change !
Ten days later...
I'm pretty sure the reason the Rooneys have stayed with their head coaches is the combined ten losing seasons over the past 44 years, three of which were Chuck Noll's first three seasons. Winning, amazingly, breeds consistency.
Eh, I don't know. I don't think Tomlin was a good head coach early on. He was a figure head surrounded by an organization that was guiding him and willing to give him a chance to grow.
That may be true, but the worst season they've had with him as head coach is 9-7.
Meh, he took over a team that was two years from their last Super Bowl and the core team from that Super Bowl still intact.
Haslam will "Stick with a HC he believes in for the long haul" I do believe from his statement.
If he Believes in Shurmer, he will stick with Shurmer. If he doesn't believe in shurmer, it will be whoever he hires for the job.
One thing you can not quote him saying mac...... Is that he plans on sticking with the current staff over the long term. I do believe that he is being honest about consistancy. But at the same time, nobody in their right mind will go the long haul with someone they don't believe in.
So wheather that is Holmgren and Shurmer, we have no idea. If you're paying all the bills, you're going to pay people you believe in to go down that road. And that may or may not be the people you inherited.
I agree with that.
It's a lot like a man saying that he believes in marrying for life, but not necessarily marrying the first woman his parents fix him up with.
Quote:
Ten days later...
Toad...yea...10 days later...sometimes I have time to challenge your "stuff" ...sometimes I'm busy doing other things.
I didn't even know you made that post...doing your best "shrink" impression claiming you now realize why I'm holding Haslam to his words...so, I now feel compelled to respond.
What caught my eye, were two of your comments from that 10 day old post, where you questioned... why didn't I hate Holmgren?
...this toad quote..."If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path."
and...this toad quote ... "If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune."
Reading those two quotes, I realized the Toad has a personal agenda...he has "hated Holmgren" all along but never admitted it. Well, now you have admitted it...
Everything you write that concerns Holmgren or rebuilding this franchise 'is not' driven by your knowledge of the game, but clouded by the emotion...hate...hatred of Mike Holmgren (and others).
Now I understand why you wanted to claim there was never a 5 yr plan...because it was Holmgren's plan and you don't want Holmgren around to see the plan through.
You even tried to convince others their was no 5 yr plan. Now I understand why you made that crazy claim...it was driven by your hatred of Holmgren.
BTW, we are only in year 3 of that 5 year plan and the first two years addressed defensive needs while this year's draft addressed the offense.
But you can't stand the thought of Holmgren being allowed to complete that 5 year plan, not because it makes sense and might work...but because you "hate" Holmgren.
Now that I understand your posts are driven by an agenda and not based on football knowledge, I know better how to respond to them.
Toad...serious questions here...
...1. Just when did you develop this emotional "hatred" of Holmgren?
Don't run now Forest, I've just started.
Quote:
One thing you can not quote him saying mac...... Is that he plans on sticking with the current staff over the long term. I do believe that he is being honest about consistancy. But at the same time, nobody in their right mind will go the long haul with someone they don't believe in.
Pit...I agree, nothing says Haslam can't go against his stated belief concerning the need for "consistency in coaching"...
But I hope we have someone in the media with balls enough to say... hey Jimmy, wait a minute..you criticized Al and Randy Lerner for changing coaches every 2.8 yrs...and the first thing you do is change coaches?
The next question the media should ask if Haslam starts ripping the franchise apart...so Jimmy, you're willing to set this franchise back another 3 or 4 yrs with this coaching change, going against the core principle you stated in your Peter King interview?
The way I see it, either Haslam has "core beliefs" he is willing to stand by...or he's just another guy who likes to criticize others but unwilling to hold himself to the same standard.
Why am I being so stubborn about the subject of making changes ??...because I'm a true believer in what Haslam said about making coaching changes and setting the franchise back everytime you make a change...HASLAM IS 100% right.
I just hope Haslam has the balls to stick to his stated belief...willing to tune out the Cleveland fans and media that are always calling for change.
We will find out something about Jimmy Haslam, the man...and whether he is just another "rabbit eared owner", void of any principles or core beliefs.
Both Al (influenced by Policy) and Randy Lerner had "rabbit ears" for the criticism from the screaming fans and media and Haslam was right to criticize them for their too frequent changes in the organization.
But now Jimmy is in a position where he will be judged as the Browns owner and what he has stated in the media is a matter of record.
What kind of owner will Jimmy be...just like the previous owners...or someone who did learn something about the way the Steelers turned their franchise around???
Quote:
Toad...serious questions here...
...1. Just when did you develop this emotional "hatred" of Holmgren?
Don't run now Forest, I've just started.
Setting aside the borderline delusional rants you've made, because they are OUT there, to answer your "serious" question...
There isn't a player or executive on the Browns I "hate." I probably haven't "hated" a guy since Butch Davis. I DO think Holmgren's body of work has been unacceptable, exemplified by the fact we're in year 3 of his program and we're one of, if not the worst, teams in the league.
Now you can...and undoubtedly will ...go on about your wishful 5-year plan, but you asked why I'm down on Holmgren so I answered.
So you asked me a point-blank question and I obliged by answering. Now, perhaps, you'd humor me and other posters as well who have asked this question, one which you have yet to answer (or perhaps you did and I missed it):
Mac, do you truly believe that Haslam is saying he intends on keeping the coaching staff in place?
This is a very simple question. You need only give a one-word answer: Yes, or no.
Now a mirthful comment...If this team doesn't make some SERIOUS strides down the stretch, I'm going to want Holmgren out. I'm close as it is right now. If Holmgren is given the boot, I'm going to find it quite entertaining to watch you go bananas
Quote:
Quote:
Toad...serious questions here...
...1. Just when did you develop this emotional "hatred" of Holmgren?
Don't run now Forest, I've just started.
Setting aside the borderline delusional rants you've made, because they are OUT there, to answer your "serious" question...
There isn't a player or executive on the Browns I "hate." I probably haven't "hated" a guy since Butch Davis. I DO think Holmgren's body of work has been unacceptable, exemplified by the fact we're in year 3 of his program and we're one of, if not the worst, teams in the league.
Now you can...and undoubtedly will ...go on about your wishful 5-year plan, but you asked why I'm down on Holmgren so I answered.
So you asked me a point-blank question and I obliged by answering. Now, perhaps, you'd humor me and other posters as well who have asked this question, one which you have yet to answer (or perhaps you did and I missed it):
Mac, do you truly believe that Haslam is saying he intends on keeping the coaching staff in place?
This is a very simple question. You need only give a one-word answer: Yes, or no.
Now a mirthful comment...If this team doesn't make some SERIOUS strides down the stretch, I'm going to want Holmgren out. I'm close as it is right now. If Holmgren is given the boot, I'm going to find it quite entertaining to watch you go bananas
If Holmgren gets the boot, My sources tell me we'll be hiring a ham sandwich as President.. Just thought I'd let you know so you can't say you weren't warned.
I also predict the return of Akron Joe.. but that's another story
Akron Joe and his ham sandwich comments became cult-classic around here, hehehe.
Quote:
I agree with that.
It's a lot like a man saying that he believes in marrying for life, but not necessarily marrying the first woman his parents fix him up with.
So with that in mind, after today's game, has anyone changed their previous positions on whether or not Holmgren and/or Shurmur stay?
Just curious...
Quote:
Quote:
I agree with that.
It's a lot like a man saying that he believes in marrying for life, but not necessarily marrying the first woman his parents fix him up with.
So with that in mind, after today's game, has anyone changed their previous positions on whether or not Holmgren and/or Shurmur stay?
Just curious...
Impossible to say. On one side, we aren't winning and Haslam doesn't appear to be the type of guy that goes for Moral Victories.
On the other hand, he believes in building through the draft and has to understand that when you do that, you have a young team and young teams blow it more often than not in the beginning.
Then the wildcard is, his and his fathers professed admiration for Holmgren.
Then you have the Banner Factor. If they release Holmgren, move Banner in his place, does Heckert and Shurmur have the relationship with him that will allow them to remain?
Either way, this is going to be entertaining...
How do you fire a legend and a future HOFer in Holmgren? You don't, you work a deal where he leaves his way. Pride and reputation intact.
How do you explain we are starting over with a new HC and maybe GM and President without the 5 year plan talk starting again?
How many fans are going to accept yet another 5 year plan if they dump Holmgren, heckert and Shurmur? and let's face it, starting over from the top down, this isn't going to happen overnight and I don't care who you hire.
One thing that hasn't been talked about much is the Polians. Could that be the answer? Could Haslam already have the decisions made?
Just as long as it's not Casserly. Please, not him.
Quote:
Quote:
I agree with that.
It's a lot like a man saying that he believes in marrying for life, but not necessarily marrying the first woman his parents fix him up with.
So with that in mind, after today's game, has anyone changed their previous positions on whether or not Holmgren and/or Shurmur stay?
Just curious...
This wasn't a game where anyone covered themselves in glory, from players to coaches ......
We did wind up with DQ and Patterson out against one of the better offenses, and possibly the best QB in the NFL. That's tough to overcome.
My biggest concern was the way things seemed to fall apart right before the half. That was largely coaching.
Quote:
How do you fire a legend and a future HOFer in Holmgren?
"Mr. Holmgren, sir, with all due respect, your tenure in Cleveland has been replete with failure at your hand. The decisions that you have made and the staff that you have put in place have failed to produce a viable on-field product. This is not a personal decision; it is strictly business and we feel that it is in the best interests of the franchise that we go our separate ways."
I think the story we here will be the Mr. H decides to retire. We will be thankful for his time and efforts in Cleveland and wish him the best.
Quote:
I think the story we here will be the Mr. H decides to retire. We will be thankful for his time and efforts in Cleveland and wish him the best.
I can only hope. That's all I want for Christmas: Holmgren and Shurmur gone and a winner brought in to lead this team to glory.
Yea .. I think we should fire everyone and start over.. Seems to have worked in the past.. A few dozen more times and we HAVE to get lucky right ?
i think Heckert has a 60/40 chance of keeping his job. to be honest with you, he hasn't done that bad in the draft....and its just a hunchy feeling from me mind you, but i don't think Heckert wanted either McCoy or Weeden. I think holmgren "pulled rank" on both of those choices and overrode Heckert.
The Weeden pick at what...#22....that pick just doesn't have Heckert's stamp on it....i just don't think Heckert is the kinda guy that would draft a 29 year old QB at that pick....i think Heckert is much, much, much smarter then that. i think Heckert was forced into that pick by Holmgren who pulled rank.
I think Tom Heckert keeps his job due to his relationship with Banner from their days in Philly, I think Shurmur and company will be out. i then think Heckert and Banner will work "together" and pick the proper Head coach and staff for this team. Make ni mistake about it, Banner is going to want to model this team after the Eagles, and Heckert is going to be thrilled with this set up of having a President that wants to build the team the same way he does. furthermore, Heckert will now not have an overbearing President that is going to pull rank with the draft and let Heckert do his thing.
i fully believe Holmgren pulled rank and forced Heckert to take Weeden...I fully believe that Heckert would not be stupid enough to take Weeden at 22 when he easily could have had him in the 2nd rd. The Weeden pick has Holmgren written all over it.
I think Heckerts biggest mistakes so far have been not bringing in some stud FAs.
We will not be able to compete if we don't supplement the roster with FAs.
I might agree with your thinking that Holmgren pulled rank.. ( Maybe ) And if he did... I'm glad. Weeden is the least of this teams problems. Did Mike "pull rank" for the Hardesty pick too ? How about the Fullback that I don't even want to mention ? I love how some posters take what they think are the "bad" picks and give them to Mike and gives Tom all the credit for the good ones
Heckert's biggest mistakes have been every time he has taken a risk, it has blown up in his face.
Although I think Weeden is a decent QB, he's certainly not what a first round QB should have been. The McCoy disaster, trading up for Hardesty, Greg Little, and other smaller roster moves.
It seems like most of the no brainers he has done well with. But any time he's take a step out on a limb, he has failed. Josh Gordon may be his only hit when he went with a risky pick.
It's the reason why I wouldn't shed a tear if Heckert is gone with Holmgren and Shurmur.
Quote:
I think Heckerts biggest mistakes so far have been not bringing in some stud FAs.
We will not be able to compete if we don't supplement the roster with FAs.
Name these 'stud FA's" that would even think of signing with the Browns? If your talking about washed up aging vets yeah that would help us instead of progressing young guys to either be depth or starters.
Today was a sad day for being a Browns fan. Talk to you all in 3 years when the next new rebuild re-begins.
I imagine most the same people will be here saying the same things anyway.
Does that mean that you're leaving?
Yeah "stud" may have been a strong term.
But his job is to convince guys to come here. It kind of seems like he takes the default position that they won't come and barely tries. Of course, that's speculation. Just a gut feeling.
And if we have to over pay to get guys here, then maybe that's what we got to do.
"Loyalty" is 95% a myth in the NFL. If you pay the most, you get the guy. We've signed plenty of free agents over the years. We just didn't want to.
That's kind of what I suspect as well.
In that regard Heckert has failed.
Quote:
Pit...I agree, nothing says Haslam can't go against his stated belief concerning the need for "consistency in coaching"...
Hiring people you plan to go the long haul with isn't "going against your core beliefs", it's implementing them.
Quote:
But I hope we have someone in the media with balls enough to say... hey Jimmy, wait a minute..you criticized Al and Randy Lerner for changing coaches every 2.8 yrs...and the first thing you do is change coaches?
To which a common sense reply would be, " I feel continuing on our current path would be a waste of time. I do believe in consistancy but I plan on being the one who provides the ingrediants for that recipe."
Quote:
The next question the media should ask if Haslam starts ripping the franchise apart...so Jimmy, you're willing to set this franchise back another 3 or 4 yrs with this coaching change, going against the core principle you stated in your Peter King interview?
Another logical reply would be, " Some may call it setting us back, but if we are on the wrong path, the reality of it is it would be prolonging and spending wasted time to get on the right path. We need an environment of winning and to me the evidence dictates this current regime hasn't shown an ability to lead us in that direction."
"The quicker we get on the right path, the quicker we all get to where we want to be."
Quote:
The way I see it, either Haslam has "core beliefs" he is willing to stand by...or he's just another guy who likes to criticize others but unwilling to hold himself to the same standard.
So if you take over a corporation that is failing, you should just let it kep sinking? His "core belief" is to put the right people to accomplish the job and stick with them. So far he hasn't put anyone in charge of anything. Claiming that in order to stick to his "core beliefs" he must retain people he had no input in hiring in the first place is just plain silly.
Quote:
Why am I being so stubborn about the subject of making changes ??...because I'm a true believer in what Haslam said about making coaching changes and setting the franchise back everytime you make a change...HASLAM IS 100% right.
According to your theory, Detroit should have stuck with the crappy cars they made in the 80's.
You don't run a successful business by retaining people you "inherited" if you don't feel those people will be successful. You hire people you do believe in and stay the course.
Quote:
I just hope Haslam has the balls to stick to his stated belief...willing to tune out the Cleveland fans and media that are always calling for change.
Oh he does. With his people, not Lerner's people. There will be very few fans that would expect any different if this team doesn't greatly improve over the course of the season. Most have the common sense to understand you don't stay the course with something you consider a losing proposition.
We know what he said. But you refuse to look at what he didn't say.
And what he didn't say is that the people he will go the long haul with are people someone else hired.
Quote:
We will find out something about Jimmy Haslam, the man...and whether he is just another "rabbit eared owner", void of any principles or core beliefs.
And we have already seen someone read more into something than was said. Someone that wishes to twist things into what they want to hear rather than what was said.
Quote:
Both Al (influenced by Policy) and Randy Lerner had "rabbit ears" for the criticism from the screaming fans and media and Haslam was right to criticize them for their too frequent changes in the organization.
Exactly. So the stage is set for a new owner going the distance with peoople he believes in. Wheather they are already here, or will be here soon.
Quote:
But now Jimmy is in a position where he will be judged as the Browns owner and what he has stated in the media is a matter of record.
What kind of owner will Jimmy be...just like the previous owners...or someone who did learn something about the way the Steelers turned their franchise around???
We'll have to see who he decides to go with and see if he stays the course. To suggest that he must stick with a regime he didn't hire and doesn't believe in order to judge his "core beliefs" is ludicrous.
Quote:
Quote:
I agree with that.
It's a lot like a man saying that he believes in marrying for life, but not necessarily marrying the first woman his parents fix him up with.
So with that in mind, after today's game, has anyone changed their previous positions on whether or not Holmgren and/or Shurmur stay?
Just curious...
My opinion will be based upon the season in its entirety. So no, my opinion has not changed. The jury is still out........
Quote:
My biggest concern was the way things seemed to fall apart right before the half. That was largely coaching.
How? I scratched my head when we took TRich off the field on 3rd and 1 but Weeden is still the one who forced the throw... then it was the defense that gave them a touchdown in 2 plays from the 40... then Cribbs fumble had nothing to do with coaching, nor did allowing them to score another TD from the 30 quickly.... then the 16 yards of penalties we had which prevented us from getting a first down to run out the clock... the crackback block, jumping off sides.... how is any of that, except for the questionable call that started it all, on the coaches?
Somebody needed to make a darn play... and we couldn't do it.
Because good coaches will pull the team back together.
With 1 minute left in the first half, with the team obviously in a spiral, what would most coaches do ... pass, or run the ball? We opened with a pass. It fell incomplete, stopping the clock. We then had back to back penalties that forced us into a 2nd and 21. The Giants then decided to play the time out game, and they got the ball back with 17 seconds back. We then added another penalty on the defensive side of that series that allowed the Giants to kick the FG.
3 costly penalties on that one series flip cost us that final FG. That's coaching.
Overall today we had 10 penalties for 91 yards. Many were just stupid, undisciplined types. That's coaching.
Hell, on the drive where we had the Weeden INT in the end zone, we had to overcome a 3rd and 18 because of 2 penalties. Coaching again.
pit...and to all of "that"...I say, we have heard it all before Jimmy...you come in here claiming you learned the Steelers way...but turns out you are no different than the past two owners the Browns have had.
Change is the enemy of the Browns...
Browns fans have lived it for the past 14 years...rabbit eared owners who listen to the noise from the fans and media, rather than completing a plan.
The Browns and their owners have not finished anything they started since 1999...but now we have endured 3 years of rebuilding with the focus on rebuilding the key offensive personnel this season.
The offense is playing with a rookie QB, rookie RB, rookie WRs and a rookie RT.
Pitt...if you expected this offense to play like seasoned veterans...you don't know crap about football.
Just like any offensive line that is young and never played together, it takes time for them to gel...this offense is a lot like a young offensive line learning to play together.
At this time...it is not about the W-L record...but about the progress being shown on both sides of the ball, though I tend to focus more our very young offense.
Barring significant injuries, I look for this team to continue to show progress, becoming more competitive as the season progresses, likely putting together some wins toward the end of the season....THEN WHAT ?
New playbooks, new coaches, new everything next season from an inexperienced owner who can't even stand by his stated beliefs...
...Lord, I hate "rabbit ears"...
Quote:
I think the story we here will be the Mr. H decides to retire. We will be thankful for his time and efforts in Cleveland and wish him the best.
which was the point I was trying to make that Adam P didn't seem to catch,,,,
Quote:
pit...and to all of "that"...I say, we have heard it all before Jimmy...you come in here claiming you learned the Steelers way...but turns out you are no different than the past two owners the Browns have had.
Great Googly Boogly,, The man hasn't taken over yet and already you start on him,.
Quote:
Quote:
I think the story we here will be the Mr. H decides to retire. We will be thankful for his time and efforts in Cleveland and wish him the best.
which was the point I was trying to make that Adam P didn't seem to catch,,,,
I caught your point. However, what we, the public, hear isn't necessarily the same as what Haslam tells Holmgren.
Quote:
There isn't a player or executive on the Browns I "hate."
Toad...sorry, I don't believe you...based on your own words...
...this toad quote..."If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path."
and...this toad quote ... "If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune."
It's obvious you hate Holmgren and anything you say now, is just you trying to spin your way out of the facts.
That type of "emotion" clouds a person's judgement and common sense. It does explain your most recent position though. You can't even acknowledge that Holmgren put in place a 5 year plan, even though the entire media have referenced the 5 year plan many times.
Quote:
I DO think Holmgren's body of work has been unacceptable, exemplified by the fact we're in year 3 of his program and we're one of, if not the worst, teams in the league
Toad...you don't rebuild a team's roster via the draft in 3 seasons....can't be done....DO YOU AGREE?
Also, the Browns drafted for defense in Holmgren's first and second years...only this season (yr 3 of 5) did the Browns focus on spending their high draft picks (1st & 2nd rd picks) on the offense adding a QB, RB, 2 WRs and a RT.
SERIOUS QUESTION, TOAD...Do you honestly believe Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur and his coaching staff targeted this 2012 season as the year the team would make a major turn around (in terms of the number wins) ?
If your answer is NO....this is not the year the Browns management and coaching staff targeted as the turn around year...then shouldn't they be given another year to produce results?
IMO,it would be a MAJOR MISTAKE by a rookie owner if he did not give this group one more season to produce results.
I contend, the 2012 season was never meant to be the year the team showed a major turn around and to set that standard now, is "totally unfair" to those who have sacrificed knowing they signed on to a 5 year plan, not a 3 year plan.
Quote:
Mac, do you truly believe that Haslam is saying he intends on keeping the coaching staff in place?
If Haslam believes in what he says he believes in...this...
"One thing Haslam has judged -- critically -- very early is the Browns' coaching merry-go-round. "They've averaged a new coach once every 2.8 years [since the franchise returned to Cleveland in 1999],'' Haslam told me, "and that's just not a good recipe.'' Do the math: Excluding interim coach Terry Robiskie in relief of Butch Davis in 2004, Cleveland's had five head coach in the 14 seasons between 1999 and 2012 -- 2.8 seasons per coach. "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.''
...YES, I believe Haslam intends to keep this coaching staff in place...or most of it. That said, Haslam does have options if he chooses to promote from within the present staff.
Haslam could replace Shurmur with defensive coordinator Dick Jauron, keeping Childress as his offensive coordinator and maintain the consistency within the coaching staff he speaks of in his Peter King interview...
OR, Haslam could replace Shurmur with Childress, keeping Jauron and the rest (or most) of the coaching staff together and still maintain the consistency he is "preaching" about in his Peter King interview.
NOW..try to answer my question...again..
... Just WHEN did you develop this emotional "hatred" of Holmgren?
...if you want to change the word "hatred" to say "major dislike" of Holmgren, fine...the question is WHEN you began to feel this dislike (or hatred) of Holmgren?
Please try to answer my question again...
Quote:
It's obvious you hate Holmgren and anything you say now, is just you trying to spin your way out of the facts.
Hey, believe whatever you wanna believe, Mac. I'd learned long ago not to worry about the disconnect from reality that sometimes happens in your world.
Quote:
...if you want to change the word "hatred" to say "major dislike" of Holmgren, fine...the question is WHEN you began to feel this dislike (or hatred) of Holmgren?
Please try to answer my question again...
It's not even "dislike." It's "approval" or "disapproval."
I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to express exactly why I'm very close to wanting Holmgren out.
Holmgren didn't come to this organization with a track record of success as an executive. He was demoted...essentially fired...as an executive in Seattle. Had he come here with a better resume in-or-near the position he currently has here, he'd have earned more leeway. He differs from Heckert in that way.
Holmgren stated that the drafts belonged to Heckert, but when McCoy was on the board, Holmgren threw his weight around and took the kid. Now I have never liked micro-managers, and this one move showed that Holmgren was just that. I didn't believe in McCoy coming out, but actually made a statement that I'd give McCoy the benefit of the doubt only because Holmgren had a well-earned reputation as a QB-guru. However, it didn't take long to understand that McCoy didn't have it, and that Holmgren's reputation took a huge hit with that mistake.
Then there's the failed move with Mangini. There is no way to state that the move was anything but a massive mistake.
Shurmur was a guy I kinda liked when we got him. I've given him the benefit of the doubt because he's been surrounded with a sad amount of talent, and have defended many of his moves. However, I still see him making very dumb mistakes, and I'm beginning to wonder if he's got "it" to be a good head coach. If he continues to make mistakes it would mean that Holmgren made a mistake with him as well. This is yet to be determined but it's not looking good for Pat, and thus it isn't looking good for Holmgren.
Then there's the philosophy of building just through the draft. We needed major help in a major way, but have elected to do very little in terms of signing any impact free agents.
Sadly, there's more...
Regardless of how any individual feels about RG3, it's very fair to judge that scenario because Holmgren was the master-mind behind it. So what happened? Holmgren BADLY wanted him. He had more ammo than the Redskins. But he failed. Then, after it was over, he stood angrily in front of a podium and somewhat embarrassed himself to the point where the media made fun of him and chided him for it. Again, it's not about whether or not the move was a good one. The way to judge Holmgren revolves around whether or not he succeeded in something he went after. He didn't.
So to answer your "question" which is much more of an "indictment"........In year three of the Holmgren master-plan, the Cleveland Browns are the only winless team in the league.
There isn't a rebuilding plan in the history of the NFL where the person in charge says it's acceptable to be the only winless team in the league in the 3rd year of the plan. His stewardship has as many questions now as it did three years ago.
Simply stated, if someone were to grade the body of work of every guy who has a similar title to Holmgren in the league, Holmgren would be ranked near the very bottom. In no uncertain terms, that is simply unacceptable.
So why have I soured on Holmgren? Because he's failed, and if his team doesn't make big strides very quickly, he doesn't deserve more time.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think the story we here will be the Mr. H decides to retire. We will be thankful for his time and efforts in Cleveland and wish him the best.
which was the point I was trying to make that Adam P didn't seem to catch,,,,
I caught your point. However, what we, the public, hear isn't necessarily the same as what Haslam tells Holmgren.
Then you didn't catch my point.. I fully expect that if Holmgren goes, it will be a scenario similar to what you describe. But to us in the public, it will allow the man to retire, leave gracefully and with his image and pride intact.
We'll find out the truth 10 years from now
NO WAY will haslam go out in public and say, Holmgren sucks and needed fired. and if he did, I'd lose all respect for him immediately.
I think the next regime is all but decided on paper.
Haslam and Banner arent taking over Holmgrens choice for HC unless things turn quickly. I still think this team will look much better weeks 10-16 than now.
Enough to make a difference? Who knows.
Ive heard Andy Reids name and just think...blech.
I like Billick but he must be either flawed or blackballed as hes never really garnered much attention lately. I thought his Rats team was tough, well prepared and fearsome. Any thoughts on him?
Billick was a mediocre OC who doesn't excite me in the least.
I have a name, but I'm certain, much like Billick, it'll give me a ton of flak. But I'd love to see us go bold and hire Chip Kelly.
Quote:
But I'd love to see us go bold and hire Chip Kelly.
I think Dana Holgorsen's offense is a bit more suited for the NFL myself (if we are going to go bold).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think the story we here will be the Mr. H decides to retire. We will be thankful for his time and efforts in Cleveland and wish him the best.
which was the point I was trying to make that Adam P didn't seem to catch,,,,
I caught your point. However, what we, the public, hear isn't necessarily the same as what Haslam tells Holmgren.
Then you didn't catch my point.. I fully expect that if Holmgren goes, it will be a scenario similar to what you describe. But to us in the public, it will allow the man to retire, leave gracefully and with his image and pride intact.
We'll find out the truth 10 years from now
NO WAY will haslam go out in public and say, Holmgren sucks and needed fired. and if he did, I'd lose all respect for him immediately.
I didn't say Haslam will go in public and say Holmgren sucked (even though its no secret). That doesn't mean he won't fire him. I too would be surprised if Haslam publicly came out and said "Mike Holmgren has been fired" or "relieved of his position" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for "fired". However, I fully expect it to happen, regardless of what the public is told. And if, 9 days or two weeks or a month from today, there's a big press release announcing Joe Banner's installation as team President and Mike Holmgren's departure from the franchise, regardless of the wording they use, could it possibly be any more transparent? Regardless of how its phrased, if Mike Holmgren departs between now and New Year's Eve, I think its a very safe bet that it did not happen on his own terms. The image he'll leave with will not be a good one, as far as his tenure in Cleveland is concerned.
I wouldn't lose respect for Haslam, though. He's is in the business of owning an NFL franchise, making money and putting a winning product on the field, not coddling Mike Holmgren. Lerner hired Holmgren because he wanted a "strong, credible leader", but Holmgren, in my opinion, has been nothing of the sort.
Quote:
pit...and to all of "that"...I say, we have heard it all before Jimmy...you come in here claiming you learned the Steelers way...but turns out you are no different than the past two owners the Browns have had.
The Steelers way doesn't mean he is forced with people that are already here that he inherited. Somehow you feel he must stick with people that someone else hired and that's silly.
Quote:
Change is the enemy of the Browns..
To some degree I think you are right but the last time I can remember that someone was fired and went on to great things was someone Modell fired and now reides in New England. Continuity simply for the sake of continuity makes no sense. Can you tell me what great football mind and HC that we have had since 99 that was fired?
You must first have the right people in place that have the ability to do the job in order to stick with them. Many HC's in the NFL haven't made the grade. Had teams stuck with those coaches they would simply have been stuck with a tradition of losing.
You seem to indicate that you can simply pick "person A" no matter what kind of job they are doing and stick with them and that is somehow the magic way to build a winner. If that were so, anybody with certain qualifications would make a great head coach and history points out that certainly isn't the case.
Quote:
Browns fans have lived it for the past 14 years...rabbit eared owners who listen to the noise from the fans and media, rather than completing a plan
Isn't this a contradiction in terms? You seem to think that Lermer was a poor owner who simply jumped around hiring different people all of the time and now you advocate that Haslam stick with "the coach de' jour"? Or are you saying that just anybody the was hired here would have been a great organization if we had simply continued to stick with them?
So who are these "great HC's and FO people" Lerner fired?
Carmen Policy? Chris Palmer or Butch Davis?
Or would any of them have worked if we had "just stuck with them long enough"? As I said, you just can't pick "person A" and if you hang with them long enough, be a winner.
Quote:
The Browns and their owners have not finished anything they started since 1999...but now we have endured 3 years of rebuilding with the focus on rebuilding the key offensive personnel this season.
You're right. So we will have to let this owner "start something" and see if he sticks with it.
Quote:
The offense is playing with a rookie QB, rookie RB, rookie WRs and a rookie RT.
Pitt...if you expected this offense to play like seasoned veterans...you don't know crap about football.
I look for steady progress over the course of the season and nothing else. Obviously you haven't been reading my posts on the board.
Quote:
Just like any offensive line that is young and never played together, it takes time for them to gel...this offense is a lot like a young offensive line learning to play together.
Lauvao started all 16 games last year and so did Pinkston. The only "new player" on the OL is Shwartz and I think he is progressing nicely. So your comment only applies to Shwartz and nobody else on the OL.
Quote:
At this time...it is not about the W-L record...but about the progress being shown on both sides of the ball, though I tend to focus more our very young offense.
I don't disagree with you here and as I said earlier, had you been reading my posts on the board, you would have known that's what I too am looking for.
Quote:
Barring significant injuries, I look for this team to continue to show progress, becoming more competitive as the season progresses, likely putting together some wins toward the end of the season....THEN WHAT ?
Well in the case of this hypothetical we must ask ourselves "why"?
Let's look at the draft as an example...........
Even winning teams have weak links. Most all teams could stand an upgrade somewhere. Usually if your team doesn't win much, there is room for improvement. That can be said for any business at every level.
So as with any team when you are looking to draft or any business or FO, you have to figure out why you won a "few games" and why you may not have won more. Was it the coaching that was good? Was it the talent drafted that was so good?
If you feel the coaching was poor but the drafting was good, you replace the coach but not the person doingt the drafting. Just like if your team wins some games but you have poor QB play, you still draft a QB. You don't hold your team back by keeping the weakest link.
Quote:
New playbooks, new coaches, new everything next season from an inexperienced owner who can't even stand by his stated beliefs...
Another BS statement. If your going to quote the man, why not in its entirety to show just how off base you really are?
____________________________________________
"We’re going to be here a lot and you’ll have the opportunity to get to know us, but we’re really excited about the opportunity. We want to bring a winning team back to Cleveland."
“The last thing I want to say before I take questions, because I know this is the first question everybody is going to ask is, what about personnel decisions? What about this and what about that? Let me just say this, first of all Randy still owns the team and as Mike said there is league protocol and the league has to have an official meeting, that will be in October and until then Randy will own the team. So it’s his team and it would be very presumptuous and very poor form for us to make any personnel decisions or comments."
" but it would be the wrong thing for us to do and we’re not going to make any comments at all on any current personnel situations or any future personnel situations and hopefully you can appreciate that."
"if you walk out of here and only remember one thing, remember the Haslam family is 100 percent committed to making the Cleveland Browns a winner again.”
http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-sports-blog/index.ssf/2012/08/cleveland_browns_new_owner_jim.html
__________________________________________
So if you wish to take one snippet of what he said and take it out of context, have at it. I've seen that done all too often.
But the fact is, his "core beliefs" are that you put the right people in place and stick with them. NEVER did he indicate wheather or not those people are here now. So don't try to pretend that if he hires his own staff that he's deviating from his core beliefs because when you look at his interview in its entirety, he didn't say he wasn't going to hire his own people first nor did he say he would.
And let me ask you this...... IF our talent improves and we do win a few games at the end of the season, is that bacause they're being coached well or because Heckert did a good job of drafting players?
And since Banner is supposed to be the one in charge and also comes from Philly, why do you think there would be such a huge difference in the sysytem we would run?
Did you ever stop to think that the system would most likely be very similar but they may just put a more qualified guy in charge of coaching the team?
You see, you have me wrong here. I'm not advocating that Haslam fire everybody. I'm actually not advocating he fire anybody...... yet. I don't care much for Shurmer but I haven't seen some of the rookie mistakes he made last year so far.
But much like the rookies, I'm willing to let the season progress and look at the situation at the end of the season.
While on the one hand I'm not advocating anyone be fired to this point, I'm also very understanding that a new owner would install his own people that he has confidence in.
I also understand that in the exact same press confrence you keep refering to, he did not say he wasn't going to hire his own people. While you keep taking one part of the press confrence and don't look at it in its entirety and keep using one small part of it to paint a picture that is totally out of context when looking at it in its entirety.
When looking at the entire press confrence, nothing you have said is accurate becsause you refuse to show the parts that do not support your arguement.
Quote:
It's not even "dislike." It's "approval" or "disapproval."
toad...go try to convince someone else...your own words expose you...
...this toad quote..."If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path."
and...this toad quote ... "If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune."
You know I don't hate Holmgren so you must be speaking of why I don't join you in your hatred of him...no other way to interpret your comments...nice try though.
Quote:
I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to express exactly why I'm very close to wanting Holmgren out.
toad..."very close" ?...who are you trying to BS...you want Holmgren gone in the worst way...don't start backtracking now.
Quote:
Holmgren stated that the drafts belonged to Heckert, but when McCoy was on the board, Holmgren threw his weight around and took the kid. Now I have never liked micro-managers, and this one move showed that Holmgren was just that. I didn't believe in McCoy coming out, but actually made a statement that I'd give McCoy the benefit of the doubt only because Holmgren had a well-earned reputation as a QB-guru. However, it didn't take long to understand that McCoy didn't have it, and that Holmgren's reputation took a huge hit with that mistake.
toad...I've tried to explain to you that McCoy was not drafted to be the franchise QB.
I have asked you several times to answer this question...but you run from it, refusing to answer it...
Do NFL teams target 3rd round QB to be their franchise QB?
I know the answer and so do you...but the answer blows up your claim that Holmgren blew the 3rd round pick on McCoy in the 2010 draft.
The Browns signed Seneca Wallace on March 8, 2010 and Jake Delhomme on March 14, 2010...
...TOAD, do you believe Holmgren was looking for a franchise QB in the 3rd round of the 2010 draft?
knowing he already had two veteran QBs signed?
I doubt you have the guts to give an honest answer, if you answer at all, so I will answer the question for you...
...NO, teams do not target 3rd round QBs to be their franchise QB. When a team drafts a QB in the 3rd round, they are looking for someone who will at the worst, turnout to be a decent backup QB, which might be all McCoy ever becomes...BUT, if the Browns would happen to get lucky and McCoy turned out to be "that" franchise QB that 99% of NFL teams target in round 1...McCoy would be a steal for the Browns.
The truth is, McCoy was drafted to be the #3 qb on the 2010 roster...not the starter...he was supposed to sit and learn his rookie year. Due to injuries, high ankle sprains to Delhomme and Wallace in the 5th game against the Falcons, McCoy was forced to start the following week against the Steelers and had a decent game in a loss, passing for 280 yds.
McCoy then started the next 4 games with victories over the Saints and Patriots and then a loss to the Jets in OT and 4 point loss at the Jags. Delhomme got healthy and started two games, both wins but Delhomme was hurt again and McCoy started the last 3 games.
The Browns terminated Delhomme's contract the following year, which turned out to be a lock out year and a year in which the Browns changed coaches. But, due to the lockout, the coaching staff could not even talk to their players, so McCoy took it upon himself to hold mini camps in Texas. McCoy also took it upon himself to seek out some advise on the new WCO, contacting and spending time with Brett Favre.
What did Seneca Wallace do ??? NOTHING
So once the strike was over, McCoy was named the starter as the entire team worked to adjust to NEW EVERYTHING. McCoy started 13 games, playing behind a poor offensive line that started inexperienced OGs and below average RTs which lead to McCoy taking a lot of punishment, while his receivers led the league in dropped passes.
Toad...so there you have it...the truth...the Browns spent backup draft value on McCoy who may be nothing better than backup value...but the jury is still out.
Quote:
Then there's the failed move with Mangini. There is no way to state that the move was anything but a massive mistake.
toad...only in the eyes of someone as biased against Holmgren as you.
Had Mangini won two more games down the stretch, I have little doubt he would have been retained as the HC, but with the agreement that he agree to a new OC who knew the WCO.
The basic question Holmgren asked...is it fair to a coach to fire him after one season?...
...ask that question to anyone with experience in coaching football and you are going to get a near 100% agreement, it is not fair.
So Holmgren gave Mangini another year.
Only in Toads world which aligns with the sports shock jocks and the over emotional, uneducated fans, do you hold it against Holmgren for giving Mangini a chance...you have to have a reason to blame someone...someone to hate...as everyone knows, for Toad, that someone is Holmgren.
BUT, from the standpoint of the franchise's goal, to rebuild the team's roster via the draft, having Mangini coach the team in 2010, did nothing to hamper the franchises goal of rebuilding the team via the draft.
DO NOT FORGET WHAT THE GOAL WAS...Mangini's goal was to win as many games as possible, but Heckert and Holmgren were focused on rebuilding the teams roster via the draft. Mangini lost his authority over the draft when Holmgren hired Heckert.
The goal of the franchise was to REBUILD the team.
Quote:
Shurmur was a guy I kinda liked when we got him. I've given him the benefit of the doubt because he's been surrounded with a sad amount of talent, and have defended many of his moves. However, I still see him making very dumb mistakes, and I'm beginning to wonder if he's got "it" to be a good head coach.
toad...Shurmur was a rookie HC last season, in a year when there was no off season to teach the WCO to the players.
This season, Shurmur has a rookie QB, RB, 2 rookie WRs and a rookie RT...Shurmur is up to his ears in "teaching" rookies how to play in the WCO.
If you know "anything" about football...you would understand that Shurmur has one helluva job on his hands.
To the over emotional fans who don't know crap about football, they believe anyone can teach football and that it is easy for rookies to learn...
Quote:
Then there's the philosophy of building just through the draft. We needed major help in a major way, but have elected to do very little in terms of signing any impact free agents.
toad..damn, at least you finally admit Holmgren and Heckert are committed to rebuilding the team via the draft...I'm making some headway here.
If your rebuilding via the draft, you don't go out and spend big on FA...not at first. As we near the end of the 5 yr plan, that changes as you assess what the team needs are.
The Browns just finished their 3rd draft with two more drafts to go and you don't sign free agents if you can get the guys you need in the draft. The closer the Browns get to the end of the rebuild, the better idea they have about which players are going to be capable doing the job.
This off season, I expect the Browns to go after defensive free agents, especially in the defensive backfield and maybe OGs and WRs...**provided the young guys we now have, do not live up to expectations.
Too soon to know exactly what our needs will be, but this team will begin to fill in the roster with good free agent signings...provided it does not blow the cap.
Quote:
Regardless of how any individual feels about RG3,.
toad..as it was, what the Browns offered would have been extremely costly to the overall goal of rebuilding the Browns via the draft...and I must add, he would have cost us more than we offered and we might still not have been outbid by Dan Snyder.
There are limits and he is just one player...who does not like to get hit...and found out what happens when you run and don't slide...RG2/12 is still trying figure out how many fingers he has on one hand.
Again, the average, over emotional fan who thinks with his heart and not his brain is going to cry about RG...Holmgren didn't get RG and we would be winning right now if we only had RG and many more tear jerking claims.
...he was only one player...it still takes 10 more to make an offensive unit and the Browns needed a RB, WRs and RT...it made no sense to offer more for RG, knowing there were so many needs on offense.
Quote:
So to answer your "question" which is much more of an "indictment"........In year three of the Holmgren master-plan, the Cleveland Browns are the only winless team in the league.
There isn't a rebuilding plan in the history of the NFL where the person in charge says it's acceptable to be the only winless team in the league in the 3rd year of the plan. His stewardship has as many questions now as it did three years ago.
toad..how many times do I have to tell you...IT IS A FREAKING 5 YR PLAN...not a 3 yr plan.
No team in the NFL can do a complete rebuild of their team's roster, via the draft, IN 3 YEARS...can't be done, not enough picks.
Hell, it's rare that "any" NFL team commits to rebuilding via the draft these days...why?...because at best, the franchise knows it is looking at 3 losing seasons. Most owners don't have the stomach to even attempt to rebuild their roster via the draft...that is why it is rarely even attempted.
But the Browns have already drafted their 3rd class and we only have two more seasons before the rebuild is done.
I look at this offense today and know they will be better next season, after learning the offense and playing in it for a season. I know this offensive unit will be even better after two seasons in this offense, under the same teacher....same goes for the defense...each year, the young players will improve as they learn and gain experience.
To build a successful NFL team, you have to teach your young players and give them experience playing.
Toad....you look at this offense through your over emotional, uneducated eyes and go...they suck...we didn't win today...they suck...I wish we had RGIII...lets blame someone...blame Holmgren...blame Shurmur.
It's obvious you and I are on different wave lengths when it comes to football. You just can't understand, it's not about winning X number of games this year...it's about teaching this young team, on both offense and defense, how to play in our system.
You must admit, the defense, which is about two years ahead of the offense, has played well enough to win many games, both last year and so far this year.
But you expect this young offensive team to play as if they are experienced veterans, which they are not.
Once the players have learned enough to carry out their assignments without having to think of everything they are doing...which only comes with repetition from practice and game experience....then the team will begin to win.
Toad, the more you type, the more you look like the uneducated fans and sports shock jocks who spend their days crying over the airwaves about the Browns not winning...and the Browns didn't get RG...always looking for someone to blame.
Most fans do not understand the rebuilding plan that was started in 2010...most fans are over-emotional people with not a clue about what the Browns are doing and just how rare and how difficult it is.
But when it is done, Holmgren and Heckert will have laid the foundation for "long term success" for this franchise...that is what this rebuild is about.
I invite anyone to go back and look what had become of the Browns roster by the time Holmgren was hired to try to fix the mess.
From Butch Davis to Crennel/Savage to Mangini...look what Holmgren (and Heckert) inherited in 2010...maybe then you can understand the need to rebuild the team's roster via the draft.
Damn fine post mac.
That Toad, he's a stinker alright.
You get FUNNY when you get upset, Mac.
Nah, I'm done answering your questions.
All that needs to be said can be found in one lil' sentence:
Quote:
Most fans do not understand the rebuilding plan that was started in 2010...
Ahh...but you're the genius that figured it out. Well, at least you did give some fans a smidgeon of credit for getting it just like you did, while the majority of ignorant, uneducated hicks which populate this board weren't smart enough to decipher the riddle. 
Afterall, the rebuilding plan which was started in 2010 had our current structure in place. I'm SOOOOO glad Eric Mangini is still our head coach, that we're still running the 3-4, and that Brian Daboll is masterminding this powerful offense with Colt McCoy running it...
Quote:
You get FUNNY when you get upset, Mac.
Nah, I'm done answering your questions.
All that needs to be said can be found in one lil' sentence:
Quote:
Most fans do not understand the rebuilding plan that was started in 2010...
Ahh...but you're the genius that figured it out. Well, at least you did give some fans a smidgeon of credit for getting it just like you did, while the majority of ignorant, uneducated hicks which populate this board weren't smart enough to decipher the riddle.
Afterall, the rebuilding plan which was started in 2010 had our current structure in place. I'm SOOOOO glad Eric Mangini is still our head coach, that we're still running the 3-4, and that Brian Daboll is masterminding this powerful offense with Colt McCoy running it...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Toad...EVERYTHING you mention above...was addressed in my response...TRY AGAIN....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not even "dislike." It's "approval" or "disapproval."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad...go try to convince someone else...your own words expose you...
...this toad quote..."If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path."
and...this toad quote ... "If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune."
You know I don't hate Holmgren so you must be speaking of why I don't join you in your hatred of him...no other way to interpret your comments...nice try though.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to express exactly why I'm very close to wanting Holmgren out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad..."very close" ?...who are you trying to BS...you want Holmgren gone in the worst way...don't start backtracking now.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holmgren stated that the drafts belonged to Heckert, but when McCoy was on the board, Holmgren threw his weight around and took the kid. Now I have never liked micro-managers, and this one move showed that Holmgren was just that. I didn't believe in McCoy coming out, but actually made a statement that I'd give McCoy the benefit of the doubt only because Holmgren had a well-earned reputation as a QB-guru. However, it didn't take long to understand that McCoy didn't have it, and that Holmgren's reputation took a huge hit with that mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad...I've tried to explain to you that McCoy was not drafted to be the franchise QB.
I have asked you several times to answer this question...but you run from it, refusing to answer it...
Do NFL teams target 3rd round QB to be their franchise QB?
I know the answer and so do you...but the answer blows up your claim that Holmgren blew the 3rd round pick on McCoy in the 2010 draft.
The Browns signed Seneca Wallace on March 8, 2010 and Jake Delhomme on March 14, 2010...
...TOAD, do you believe Holmgren was looking for a franchise QB in the 3rd round of the 2010 draft?
knowing he already had two veteran QBs signed?
I doubt you have the guts to give an honest answer, if you answer at all, so I will answer the question for you...
...NO, teams do not target 3rd round QBs to be their franchise QB. When a team drafts a QB in the 3rd round, they are looking for someone who will at the worst, turnout to be a decent backup QB, which might be all McCoy ever becomes...BUT, if the Browns would happen to get lucky and McCoy turned out to be "that" franchise QB that 99% of NFL teams target in round 1...McCoy would be a steal for the Browns.
The truth is, McCoy was drafted to be the #3 qb on the 2010 roster...not the starter...he was supposed to sit and learn his rookie year. Due to injuries, high ankle sprains to Delhomme and Wallace in the 5th game against the Falcons, McCoy was forced to start the following week against the Steelers and had a decent game in a loss, passing for 280 yds.
McCoy then started the next 4 games with victories over the Saints and Patriots and then a loss to the Jets in OT and 4 point loss at the Jags. Delhomme got healthy and started two games, both wins but Delhomme was hurt again and McCoy started the last 3 games.
The Browns terminated Delhomme's contract the following year, which turned out to be a lock out year and a year in which the Browns changed coaches. But, due to the lockout, the coaching staff could not even talk to their players, so McCoy took it upon himself to hold mini camps in Texas. McCoy also took it upon himself to seek out some advise on the new WCO, contacting and spending time with Brett Favre.
What did Seneca Wallace do ??? NOTHING
So once the strike was over, McCoy was named the starter as the entire team worked to adjust to NEW EVERYTHING. McCoy started 13 games, playing behind a poor offensive line that started inexperienced OGs and below average RTs which lead to McCoy taking a lot of punishment, while his receivers led the league in dropped passes.
Toad...so there you have it...the truth...the Browns spent backup draft value on McCoy who may be nothing better than backup value...but the jury is still out.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's the failed move with Mangini. There is no way to state that the move was anything but a massive mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad...only in the eyes of someone as biased against Holmgren as you.
Had Mangini won two more games down the stretch, I have little doubt he would have been retained as the HC, but with the agreement that he agree to a new OC who knew the WCO.
The basic question Holmgren asked...is it fair to a coach to fire him after one season?...
...ask that question to anyone with experience in coaching football and you are going to get a near 100% agreement, it is not fair.
So Holmgren gave Mangini another year.
Only in Toads world which aligns with the sports shock jocks and the over emotional, uneducated fans, do you hold it against Holmgren for giving Mangini a chance...you have to have a reason to blame someone...someone to hate...as everyone knows, for Toad, that someone is Holmgren.
BUT, from the standpoint of the franchise's goal, to rebuild the team's roster via the draft, having Mangini coach the team in 2010, did nothing to hamper the franchises goal of rebuilding the team via the draft.
DO NOT FORGET WHAT THE GOAL WAS...Mangini's goal was to win as many games as possible, but Heckert and Holmgren were focused on rebuilding the teams roster via the draft. Mangini lost his authority over the draft when Holmgren hired Heckert.
The goal of the franchise was to REBUILD the team.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shurmur was a guy I kinda liked when we got him. I've given him the benefit of the doubt because he's been surrounded with a sad amount of talent, and have defended many of his moves. However, I still see him making very dumb mistakes, and I'm beginning to wonder if he's got "it" to be a good head coach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad...Shurmur was a rookie HC last season, in a year when there was no off season to teach the WCO to the players.
This season, Shurmur has a rookie QB, RB, 2 rookie WRs and a rookie RT...Shurmur is up to his ears in "teaching" rookies how to play in the WCO.
If you know "anything" about football...you would understand that Shurmur has one helluva job on his hands.
To the over emotional fans who don't know crap about football, they believe anyone can teach football and that it is easy for rookies to learn...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's the philosophy of building just through the draft. We needed major help in a major way, but have elected to do very little in terms of signing any impact free agents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad..damn, at least you finally admit Holmgren and Heckert are committed to rebuilding the team via the draft...I'm making some headway here.
If your rebuilding via the draft, you don't go out and spend big on FA...not at first. As we near the end of the 5 yr plan, that changes as you assess what the team needs are.
The Browns just finished their 3rd draft with two more drafts to go and you don't sign free agents if you can get the guys you need in the draft. The closer the Browns get to the end of the rebuild, the better idea they have about which players are going to be capable doing the job.
This off season, I expect the Browns to go after defensive free agents, especially in the defensive backfield and maybe OGs and WRs...**provided the young guys we now have, do not live up to expectations.
Too soon to know exactly what our needs will be, but this team will begin to fill in the roster with good free agent signings...provided it does not blow the cap.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of how any individual feels about RG3,.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad..as it was, what the Browns offered would have been extremely costly to the overall goal of rebuilding the Browns via the draft...and I must add, he would have cost us more than we offered and we might still not have been outbid by Dan Snyder.
There are limits and he is just one player...who does not like to get hit...and found out what happens when you run and don't slide...RG2/12 is still trying figure out how many fingers he has on one hand.
Again, the average, over emotional fan who thinks with his heart and not his brain is going to cry about RG...Holmgren didn't get RG and we would be winning right now if we only had RG and many more tear jerking claims.
...he was only one player...it still takes 10 more to make an offensive unit and the Browns needed a RB, WRs and RT...it made no sense to offer more for RG, knowing there were so many needs on offense.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So to answer your "question" which is much more of an "indictment"........In year three of the Holmgren master-plan, the Cleveland Browns are the only winless team in the league.
There isn't a rebuilding plan in the history of the NFL where the person in charge says it's acceptable to be the only winless team in the league in the 3rd year of the plan. His stewardship has as many questions now as it did three years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
toad..how many times do I have to tell you...IT IS A FREAKING 5 YR PLAN...not a 3 yr plan.
No team in the NFL can do a complete rebuild of their team's roster, via the draft, IN 3 YEARS...can't be done, not enough picks.
Hell, it's rare that "any" NFL team commits to rebuilding via the draft these days...why?...because at best, the franchise knows it is looking at 3 losing seasons. Most owners don't have the stomach to even attempt to rebuild their roster via the draft...that is why it is rarely even attempted.
But the Browns have already drafted their 3rd class and we only have two more seasons before the rebuild is done.
I look at this offense today and know they will be better next season, after learning the offense and playing in it for a season. I know this offensive unit will be even better after two seasons in this offense, under the same teacher....same goes for the defense...each year, the young players will improve as they learn and gain experience.
To build a successful NFL team, you have to teach your young players and give them experience playing.
Toad....you look at this offense through your over emotional, uneducated eyes and go...they suck...we didn't win today...they suck...I wish we had RGIII...lets blame someone...blame Holmgren...blame Shurmur.
It's obvious you and I are on different wave lengths when it comes to football. You just can't understand, it's not about winning X number of games this year...it's about teaching this young team, on both offense and defense, how to play in our system.
You must admit, the defense, which is about two years ahead of the offense, has played well enough to win many games, both last year and so far this year.
But you expect this young offensive team to play as if they are experienced veterans, which they are not.
Once the players have learned enough to carry out their assignments without having to think of everything they are doing...which only comes with repetition from practice and game experience....then the team will begin to win.
Toad, the more you type, the more you look like the uneducated fans and sports shock jocks who spend their days crying over the airwaves about the Browns not winning...and the Browns didn't get RG...always looking for someone to blame.
Most fans do not understand the rebuilding plan that was started in 2010...most fans are over-emotional people with not a clue about what the Browns are doing and just how rare and how difficult it is.
But when it is done, Holmgren and Heckert will have laid the foundation for "long term success" for this franchise...that is what this rebuild is about.
I invite anyone to go back and look what had become of the Browns roster by the time Holmgren was hired to try to fix the mess.
From Butch Davis to Crennel/Savage to Mangini...look what Holmgren (and Heckert) inherited in 2010...maybe then you can understand the need to rebuild the team's roster via the draft.
--------------------
....WOOF....GRRR....CHOMP....MAC
Edited by mac (10/10/12 06:41 AM)
Quote:
...this toad quote..."If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path."
and...this toad quote ... "If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune."
No toad...I don't hate Mike Holmgren...and you sure appeared to be a supporter of Holmgren's until very recently...just what changed you?
On 7-14-2012, TOAD POSTED THIS...
"I'm not offering an opinion of how well these guys may or may not do, but I just wanted to note the amount of risk these guys have taken to try and go for the quick-fix. If they aren't right...and Richardson is the only guy considered to be a lock...we're facing a new President, a new GM, and a new coaching staff all over again. And that won't start until after the 2013 season."
...................................................................................................
Toad, obviviously you believed Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmur should not only stay on through this season...but they should stay on for the 2013 season too.
that's an awful lot of words just to say "Nuh Uh!!!!"
Quote:
that's an awful lot of words just to say "Nuh Uh!!!!"
Quote:
that's an awful lot of words just to say "Nuh Uh!!!!"
That just made my day!
Quote:
that's an awful lot of words just to say "Nuh Uh!!!!"
I do understand that there are LITTLE TOADS who like to hang around BIG TOAD, so they can come to his rescue when BIG TOAD is shown to be a fool, caught playing both sides of an issue.
That is nice trick you have their Toad, trying to position yourself on both sides of the fence on the issue of Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmur...advocating that they be given enough time to see the rebuilding project through the 2013 season.
...JUST 2 MONTHS AGO the BIG TOAD ""supported"" Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmur...not only through this 2012 season..BUT THROUGH THE 2013 SEASON.
UNFREAKING REAL...just 2 months ago the BIG TOAD was telling his 'little toads', Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmur should continue on the job this season AND THROUGH 2013.
Here's what the BIG TOAD was telling his little toads..the quote...
" I'm not offering an opinion of how well these guys may or may not do, but I just wanted to note the amount of risk these guys have taken to try and go for the quick-fix. "
You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Quote:
I do understand that there are LITTLE TOADS who like to hang around BIG TOAD, so they can come to his rescue when BIG TOAD is shown to be a fool,
Just so I understand, if someone agrees with Toad and disagrees with you, they are a little toad? do I have that right?
In your case I think he meant turd......
Quote:
In your case I think he meant turd......
Oh,, well that's better then..
Quote:
You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Hell, I'm embarrassed for him. It's like the little old guy walking down the sidewalk talking to imaginary birds, waving at them, then cackling to himself madly: You don't wanna look, you feel badly for him, but he just keeps going.
The scary part isn't that he's said the exact same thing in two different threads, indicating a near-state of mania, or that his fellow Browns fans are encouraging him to stop, but that he's doing this to himself based on a non-truth.
*shrug*
All it takes is one Ref with a sense of pity to end this. Now might be a good time for that.
