Shurmur Conversation - DawgTalkers.net

Would have really loved it if you addressed the other part of my post.

Quote:

Would have really loved it if you addressed the other part of my post.

I thought I answered those questions prior to your post.

I don't think that the play action passing on the last drive was a great call, but on the other hand I also don't see that it had a negative effect on the outcome of the plays in question.

In short I think that a whole lot is being made out of a moot point.

I think that if you look at the entire body of work last night ... imo I can't really say that the play calling was suspect.

I think that one can micro manage each and every game and find faults in the plan, but if the execution is not up to par, then that presents another variable to the equation. One that no amount of second guessing can quantify.

I have big shoulders ; I can carry the load .. I think Shurmur has sucked since day one and still feel that way ... We never have been able to run a screen pass , never .. So he runs one at one of the most critical points in the fourth quarter : Dumb , gets a personal foul called on himself : Dumb .. And the list goes on game after game after game .. Little is killing us so lets play him some more ? More speed at LB'er shows up big time , so we start Fujita and Mav... Brilliant .. And the list goes on .. Roster spot for the FB ???

Quote:

I don't think that the play action passing on the last drive was a great call, but on the other hand I also don't see that it had a negative effect on the outcome of the plays in question.

In short I think that a whole lot is being made out of a moot point.

I think that if you look at the entire body of work last night ... imo I can't really say that the play calling was suspect.

I have to disagree here. I do hope Shurmer learns from his mistakes, but as it pertains to play action ( not strictly based on the last drive, but overall ) and the overall playcalling, I do feel this game was mismanaged.

For play action to really be affective, you need to have a balanced attack. Now many can say that TRich was not effective running the ball last night but I disagree in two ways.

1. He did score a TD running the ball.

2. 14 carries is a far too small number to judge wheather a more balanced attack would have been more successful.

TRich rushed the ball 14 times. Weeden had 52 pass attempts and was sacked once for a total of 53 times he actually went back to pass the ball.

With those numbers scewed so badly, by the 4th quarter, play action does little to nothing. Your oponent has already seen your propensity for throwing the football. The "element of surprise" that play action is supposed to bring has been lost.

That's why I really think highly of Weeden's performance last night. The entire burden of the game for the most part was squarely placed upon his shoulders. Our HC basicly neutralized our running game by choice. And by the 4th quarter, anyone watching this game saw that, including our oponents.

We moved up to the #3 position in the draft and paid well in order to do that. Then we let him tote the rock 14 times while our #22 pick QB throws the ball 52 times?

I really don't see much of anything sound or balanced about that sort of game plan. And for play action to truely work, balance is a very signifigant part of that process.

I guess we can sit here and say, "It's all about execution" if we'd like, but an element of surprise helps contribute to the ability to execute.

Quote:

For play action to really be affective, you need to have a balanced attack. Now many can say that TRich was not effective running the ball last night but I disagree in two ways.

I don't disagree that Richardson did not have a bad night, IIRC he also had like 57 yards receiving on 4 receptions. You can have all of the balance in your attack you want, but unless you have a true threat like we have in Richardson, then play action is all for not.

The reasons why the play action pass was a good call 'most of the night' was, because of the fact that their defense was trying to take Trent out of the game. None the less I think that the threat was always present if he is in the game and the LBers especially need to stay aware of that.

Trying to argue that play calling was the root of our problems last night is silly talk. It came down to a few plays, that if executed properly (better), would have been the difference in winning or losing the game.

We had Cribbs fumble to over come ... Robertson's INT nullified that mistake.

We had the pick 6 to over come ... I think that Weeds bounced back from that pretty well. At least as well as could be expected minus a game tying pass.

On the 11 play 94 yard drive ... we had to over come penalties that set us back and off of schedule ... we proved what we are capable of if we execute the plan properly on that drive. (I don't see any indifference with play calling on that drive)

What we could not over come was 7 (at least) drop passes and at least one of which (possibly two) should have been good for a TD.

Like you I too would like to see Trent get more carries in a game, but that would entail us getting a lead in a game to take full advantage of his rushing abilities, especially late in the 4th quarter of games.

NTU As far as Weeden being under center and not in the shotgun ... I think that it has been well established that a QB gets a better look at the defense and what they are trying to do from under center, then in shotgun formation. That's not even debatable.

If you don't believe me then e-mail Vic or some other expert on the subject.

Quote:

I'll tell you what worries me ....and that's the way we start out games slowly. Either we are making remarkable adjustments as the game goes along, or we're just not prepared for what teams are doing to us off the bat.

I'm thinking... ok, maybe I'm hoping... that this is the reason, we have 5 starting rookies on offense, we aren't really sure how defenses are game planning against us so we don't know how to game plan against them... add to that, we aren't dominant enough in any phase to say, "Ok, this is what we are going to do, you try to stop it." .... then you have a bunch of rookies seeing these teams live for the first time ever... It all adds up to a couple drives of feeling out what the other team is going to do by the players and the coaches.

The optimist in me wants to focus on the positive adjustments and not the slow start.

Quote:

The reasons why the play action pass was a good call 'most of the night' was, because of the fact that their defense was trying to take Trent out of the game. None the less I think that the threat was always present if he is in the game and the LBers especially need to stay aware of that.

I don't disagree that TRich is always a threat, but Richardson ran 5 times in the first quarter, 5 times in the second quarter and a grand total of 4 times in the entire second half.

Quote:

Trying to argue that play calling was the root of our problems last night is silly talk. It came down to a few plays, that if executed properly (better), would have been the difference in winning or losing the game.

I don't believe I said anywhere it was the root of our problem.? But we weren't down by 21 points at half time so I see no legitimate excuse to only rush TRich 4 times in an entire half of fotball. I think trying to excuse that is pretty much silly talk as well.

Quote:

We had Cribbs fumble to over come ... Robertson's INT nullified that mistake.

We had the pick 6 to over come ... I think that Weeds bounced back from that pretty well. At least as well as could be expected minus a game tying pass.

When you require in your play calling that a rookie QB in his 4th start throw the ball 52 times, you're very lucky it was only one pick. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good?

Quote:

On the 11 play 94 yard drive ... we had to over come penalties that set us back and off of schedule ... we proved what we are capable of if we execute the plan properly on that drive. (I don't see any indifference with play calling on that drive)

So you are advocating that a sound game plan is having Weeden pass the ball 52 times while TRich rushes 14 times? I mean, am I actually reading this right?

Quote:

Like you I too would like to see Trent get more carries in a game, but that would entail us getting a lead in a game to take full advantage of his rushing abilities, especially late in the 4th quarter of games.

My premise actually has nothing to do with "late in the fourth quarter".

TRich rushed three times in the third quarter.
He rushed once in the 4th QTR. with 13:04 left on the clock and never touched the ball on a rushing down afterwords.

My assertion is there are many factors that contribute to a loss. Just as you have to take shots down field to loosen up D's in order to rush the ball, you also have to rush once in a while to keep them honest if you wish to pass the ball down field.

Let's look at the part of the third quarter that truely expounds my point. I understand that when you have to come back from a deficit late in the game that you are forced to pass. That's not even the issue here. Once again let's look at when we did have every option in the world to have a balanced attack.

Third Qtr.... Time left 9:49...... Score 16-7

9:49 Trent Richardson rush to the left for 3 yards to the Cle17. Tackled by Pernell McPhee and Ray Lewis.

2nd down at Cle17

9:08 Brandon Weeden pass to the left to Greg Little for 5 yards to the Cle22. Tackled by Paul Kruger.

3rd down at Cle22

8:37 Brandon Weeden pass to the right to Trent Richardson for 15 yards to the Cle37. Tackled by Jameel McClain.

1st down at Cle37

8:07 Brandon Weeden pass to the middle to Benjamin Watson for 13 yards to the 50. Tackled by Bernard Pollard. Penalty: Unnecessary Roughness on Baltimore (Bernard Pollard) 15 yards.

1st down at Bal35

7:05 Trent Richardson rush to the left for 2 yards to the Bal33. Tackled by Albert McClellan and Haloti Ngata.

2nd down at Bal33

7:05 Brandon Weeden incomplete pass to the middle intended for Jordan Norwood defensed by Lardarius Webb.

3rd down at Bal33

7:02 Brandon Weeden incomplete pass to the middle intended for Jordan Norwood.

4th down at Bal33

7:02 Phil Dawson 51 yard field goal attempt is GOOD. Holder: Reggie Hodges.

At this juncture in the game we were down by only six points and Weeden had passed twice as much as TRich had rushed the ball 26 passes and TRich had 13 rushes.

We had a rookie QB with three NFL starts to that juncture. Now you may say that's a sound game plan if you wish. But let's look at other rookie QB's

Tannehill 36 attempts.
They use RB by commitee since Bush is coming back from injury. So Bush rushed 10 times, Thomas 19 times and Miller 9 times.

36 passes and 38 rushes.

Russel Wilson 21 attempts
Marshawn Lynch 25 attempts
Leon Washington 1 attempt

21 passes 26 rushes

Since Griffin didn't play this week, I used last weeks box score against the Saints.....

Griffin passed 26 times
I'll even leave the rushes Griffin had out of it. Which was 9 times BTW

Morris rushed for 28 attempts and a total of 6 rushes by remaining players.

26 pass attempts and 34 rushing attempts and that excludes the 9 rushes by Griffin.

The ONLY team that compares to us in number of pass attempts by a rookie QB is Indy who has no premiere RB and has the most NFL ready rookie QB I've seen in years.

Luck had 46 pass attempts
Donald Brown rushed 18 times while Ballard and Moore rushed for a total of 7 more

46 pass attempts and 25 rushing attempts

By contrast we had 52 pass attempts and one sack which would mean 53 pass plays called.

52 pass plays and 17 total rushing plays.

Other than Luck, our playcalling is total lopsidedy. Even if you look to the point we were only behind by six points we had tried to pass versus the run at a 2-1 ratio.

I'm not trying to say that the playcalling was the "main reason" we lost the game. what I am saying is that you don't take a rookie QB who has been struggling to try to pass at a 2 to 1 ratio when the game is close.

The only other team that even attempts to get CLOSE to those numbers is Indy who has the premiere pick in Luck and no real threat at the RB position at all.

Sure these are just stats, but you can look at how rookie QB's have been brought along in this league. The burden isn't placed directly on their shoulders this way. You use a balanced attack. When you have a premiere RB, you let him tote the rock to help open up things for your QB.

In this case, we played a game we were in "dispite" the game plan, not because of it........

Quote:

So you are advocating that a sound game plan is having Weeden pass the ball 52 times while TRich rushes 14 times? I mean, am I actually reading this right?

Pit your a master at putting words into someones mouth. Never did I imply that.

Also you leave out the fact that Trent also had four receptions ... that's 18 touches and IIRC we tried to hit him a couple other times in the flat and on a screen pass that was blown up.

I don't think that it's a great idea to have Tom Brady (or other) pass the ball 52 times, but sometimes it just ends up that way. Especially if you factor in being down and time is not on your side with no time outs to work with.

In short I don't think that it was the game plan to have Weeds pass 52 times. Sometimes it just works out that way.

This is a passing League today no matter how much you want to believe that it is not and it's not uncommon to be unbalanced in way of passing over running.

If we could ever manage to get an early lead, then and only then will you see a more balanced attack, even with a RB of the caliber of Richardson. That's where our dilemma lies in getting our franchise RB more carries. It's not about the game plan. It's about game situations. If a defense is keying on your RB, then something is open in their passing defense for your offense to exploit. Take away the drop passes and I think that the score is more in our favor and that brings Trent back, front and center in our attack in the second half.

If the defense is trying to take away your running back, then you (try to) beat them with the pass and that's what occurred on Thursday night.

Like a chess match your moves are predicated by your opponents moves.

I've been trying really hard to remain objective with Shurmur. I think he lacks passion on the field, and he doesn't exactly strike me as a motivator either. We've surrounded Shurmur with a wealth of experienced coaches that I hope he's drawing from when he's in doubt. I think that he seems a little more 'in control' this season than he came across last year and that's a product of experience. Playcalling, suspect at times for sure but I think overall he's doing a (somewhat...) better job than he was doing last year. Is he perfect? No... far from it. However he's a young coach, learning just as our young team is learning as well. We will see by the end of the year but IMO, he's got to win another season and that doesn't come without winning football games.

Throwing the ball a ton is just what Pat does. Sam Bradford passed 590 times as a rookie in 2010 (third highest number of attempts, behind Peyton Manning and Drew Brees). Last season, Colt threw the ball 463 times in 13 games (which extrapolates to 570 attempts in 16 games; Ryan Fitzpatrick had the 6th highest number of attempts with 569).

Weeden has 167 passing attempts through 4 games. Those are numbers you're loath to ask of a Pro Bowler, let alone a rookie. But that's the game that Pat calls.

Quote:

Throwing the ball a ton is just what Pat does. Sam Bradford passed 590 times as a rookie in 2010 (third highest number of attempts, behind Peyton Manning and Drew Brees). Last season, Colt threw the ball 463 times in 13 games (which extrapolates to 570 attempts in 16 games; Ryan Fitzpatrick had the 6th highest number of attempts with 569).

Weeden has 167 passing attempts through 4 games. Those are numbers you're loath to ask of a Pro Bowler, let alone a rookie. But that's the game that Pat calls.

That should come as no surprise if you consider the offense that we are running.

Short passes are a substitute for the running game in the WCO.

Trent had 57 yards on 4 receptions and that was a better option for us to get him the ball Thursday night.

If the passing game is successful, then the defense will change their philosophy and try to take that away ... leaving our running game as the better option. Until which time teams start to try and take away our passing game, then their game plan will be to take away Richardson's running.

The pass can set up the running game and like wise, the run can set up your passing game.
A defense can't evenly take away both.

If they are taking away Trent, then they are inviting us to pass and we have. That's smart football in my book.

Quote:

I don't think that it's a great idea to have Tom Brady (or other) pass the ball 52 times, but sometimes it just ends up that way. Especially if you factor in being down and time is not on your side with no time outs to work with.

I plainly shown how we passed at a ratio of 2 to 1 when we were down no more than six points. I left the 4th quarter out of that equasion to show you that. Now you revert back to when we were down late in the game.

Quote:

In short I don't think that it was the game plan to have Weeds pass 52 times. Sometimes it just works out that way.

As I stated, even when we weren't down by a large number of points, "the game plan" had a rookie QB in his fourth start throwing at a ratio of 2 to 1 over rushing plays.

Common sense dictates you do not try to force your rookie QB into situations where he must carry the burden. You balance things out and have him slowly work on adding more passes as he grows within the system.

Quote:

This is a passing League today no matter how much you want to believe that it is not and it's not uncommon to be unbalanced in way of passing over running.

If that was the plan here early on, then why did we move up one spot and pay heavily in order to do that, for a RB we only ran 14 times? Point being, nobody is saying it isn't a passing league, I'm saying you don't take a rookie QB in his 4th start and call a game plan that forces him to throw twice as much as you run. That comes in time.

Quote:

If we could ever manage to get an early lead, then and only then will you see a more balanced attack, even with a RB of the caliber of Richardson. That's where our dilemma lies in getting our franchise RB more carries. It's not about the game plan. It's about game situations. If a defense is keying on your RB, then something is open in their passing defense for your offense to exploit.

That would mean you think they were stacking 8 men in the box very often which isn't the case here. You don't need "the lead" to rush, you need the game to "be close" to run. We were very close until almost the end of the 3rd quarter. Yet we passed twice as much as we ran. Obviously, that was the game plan.

Only QB's like Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Tony Romo are asked to pass at such a ratio. Why? Because they have proven the ability to do so. You don't ask a struggling rookie to do that. It lacks common sense. You must bring a rookie along by slowly laying the burden on his shoulders. If you want to ruin a rookie QB, you do exactly what Shurmer is doing by setting him up for failure by laying the game squarely on his shoulders very early on in his career.

Quote:

Take away the drop passes and I think that the score is more in our favor and that brings Trent back, front and center in our attack in the second half.

Dude, we were behind by only 6 points when Shurmer made Trent a non-factor. That not an excusable action no matter how hard you try.

Quote:

If the defense is trying to take away your running back, then you (try to) beat them with the pass and that's what occurred on Thursday night.

Like a chess match your moves are predicated by your opponents moves.

You refuse to look at how the game is supposed to be played. Just like you must stretch the field in order to keep oposing D's honest, the same holds true for rushing the ball if you expect play action to work.

You stick with your game plan until you fall far behind. We gave up on the run and used it far too little when we were within the hunt for the win, bottom line.

If your the cook and you don't get to select the groceries all you can do is make the food taste as good as you can.

For all the people who are critical of Shurmur you may want to look at the history of great coaches in the NFL. Pick any name from Bill Walsh, John Madden, Tom Landry, Bill Belichick, and many many others. Things did not often start out with a bang.

We the fans know very little about Pat Shurmur. We do not attend practice. We do not sit in meetings. We are not a part of the coaching staff. We are not involved in game planning. We do not have access to coaching film.

Pat Shurmur may become a great coach given the time to prove what he can do.

He could also prove to be inept. We will never know unless he is given the chance.

From last year till now is hardly proof of anything.

I don't think most of us are saying we have "proof positive" of anything. As a matter of fact, I myself want him to have at the very least the rest of this season to see what transpires.

But what I do look for is "indications" as to wheather he is improving or not. I haven't seen the mismangement of the clock and some of the rookie things I saw last year.

We actually didn't run on every first down this last game. To me, those are some positive signs thus far. Yet when I do see signs that show something I don't think is right, I will point those out as well.

To me, that's what these Shurmer threads are about. Sort of collecting information and forming opinions as the season progresses. Sometimes around here people jump to the conclusion that any and every time something negative is said about someone, you're trying to hang them out to dry.

For me that's not the case. I do believe with the investment made in TRich you have to give him more touches until and unless you are way behind in the game. So to that end, I didn't care for the overall playcalling last week. But I have also seen some positive signs.

The team finished last year going 1-10 to end it.

The team is 0-4 this year. We know very little about Pat Shurmur? He is the head coach.

... Start winning soon.

Just curious, what do you think the Browns record would be those 15 games if Billichek was HC? Jim Harbaugh? Parcels? Paul Brown?

That is a very ugly stretch.

My biggest issue with Shurmur is an offense that seems left behind. That being said, it's very vanilla, with very green and inexperienced players...or without an offseason to prepare and little talent to work with.

It's hard to figure out if our offense is archaic, or is it just vanilla because of the hand he's been dealt.

Regardless, our offense has flashed some. We've scored 16, 27, 14, and 16...not a ringing endorsement of success, but, it's flashed. It's shown that it has sustainability, something that hasnt been shown in the past. We looked dangerous in late game drives against Cincy and Baltimore.

One concerning thing though is our performance in the 1st quarter. We've been outscored 103-32 since Shurmur was hired. That speaks to the gameplanning. It hasnt been very good. While we've had good game plans to keep games close and be in every game, our first quarters have been atrocious. In addition, blowing 5 fourth quarter leads is also a worry of large proportions.

Shurmur must increase his trust in his guys, and his guys must respond. That's all i got for those two things. Go for broke.

Quote:

We actually didn't run on every first down this last game.

I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought this was a huge problem last year.

Quote:

It's hard to figure out if our offense is archaic, or is it just vanilla because of the hand he's been dealt.

I'd venture a guess that once our QB & WR's stop combining for so many drops/incompletes, that our offense will start to look at LOT less archaic.

You can't get into the fancy stuff if you still can't do the basics. Once you get to the point where you can consistently execute well enough to dictate things to the defense you're playing, then the entire playbook opens up for you.

Just my $0.02.

Quote:

For me that's not the case. I do believe with the investment made in TRich you have to give him more touches until and unless you are way behind in the game. So to that end, I didn't care for the overall playcalling last week. But I have also seen some positive signs.

We would all like to see more touches for Trent, although he did have 18 plays from scrimmage and was targeted a few more times and IIRC he had a nice run negated by a holding penalty too. Perhaps they where not as many as we would like to see, but his touches where not irresponsible from a Coaching and playcalling standpoint.

Just in case you missed my last rebuttal on this subject. If they are keying against Richardson and our running game, then something is open in the passing game. The odds of running successfully under those conditions, do not favor your blockers or your RB. (it's a numbers thing). If and when we show a consistent passing threat, then the numbers to run against the defense will become more favorable for our blockers and Trent Richardson.

Smart Coach's take what the defense gives them.
If you have a lead and you want to try and run against unfavorable numbers, then I think that's acceptable, but I never like to play not to lose.

Dropped passes are effecting the running game too, because the running game will not open up without a consistent passing game.

Forgetaboutit!

40% reception to target ratio is not going to get it done.

We were down by a TD with a chance to tie in a game most thought we'd get blown out in.

I'd say to a point our "gameplan" was successful.

Quote:

Just curious, what do you think the Browns record would be those 15 games if Billichek was HC? Jim Harbaugh? Parcels? Paul Brown?

This is in response to me saying they were 1-10 to finish last year and 0-4 to start this year.

... OK, this might take a while. First I'm going to say, Marty Schottenheimer is the coach I have the most confidence in in the regular season and divisional games. To finsih 1-10, I have to beleive, Marty, would have, last year had, with our same roster, a good 5-7 wins in the last 11 games.
One has to consider that the Philadelphia game to start this year, was set up by the defense for the offense to win it with a 6 point lead and possession of the ball with about 8 minutes left in the 4th quarter. I have to figure Marty would have with our roster, gotten a win there and vs the Bengals, ( simply because Marty was more clutch to get a division title than anyone that comes to mind) ( He even won the division with the Chiefs when Elway and Terrelle Davis were getting their SB.)

If you factor in the number of backup quarterbacks the Browns had a chance to face last year, I think you have to bump any Browns coach's win total up.

now to answer your question.
How many if Bellichick were the HC.
With the Browns current rosters last year, and this year, I think that Bellichick would have about 11 wins, but I'm counting 4-0 this year.
This may be conservative, as I think maybe he gets 9 last year, so 13-2.

With the Browns rosters, Paul Brown, ... well it's hard to translate a coach I never watched from a different era into today's game, but Paul Brown is a hall of fame coach, I believe, so ,and having looked into a little of Browns history, I have to say he was dominant, so I'd have to believe he would dominate, so I'm going to have to think Paul Brown would have had 7 or 8 to finish last year, and be 3-1 to start this year, ( in my mind the loss is Baltimore.)
so I'll say 10-5

Jim Harbaugh, I really don't know alot about Jim Harbaugh,
He, I think, is the coach of the San Francisco team, that team has alot of 1st round picks on it, ... I heard a story last year where he simplified the offense for Alex Smith, the passing offense, and made for better results, ( from Clayton, espn radio) but let's get serious.
With the Browns roster and reputation, Jim Harbaugh last year the last 11 games, I think would probably only get about 5 wins, maybe only 4, or 3, or 2, but this year, with this roster, I think he would get at least a 2-2 record to start the season.
Why? The reason being that a new season brings a new start, new expectations and they aren't going to start out not being in the mix of things.

Bill Parcells.
I'll give you the hay day of Bill Parcells, not the today, or even his last couple years.
With the Browns players and roster last year, Parcells, I don't think would have gotten alot out of Colt McCoy, because their styles are in conflict, but I beleive he would have gotten alot, ALOT more out of our runningbacks, and the defense, but the Browns in 2011 in this division, ( and division games were never Parcells best asset... and I'm not saying he was bad in his own division just, what I'm saying is he'd struggle vs the AFC North with the 2011 Browns as much as any of the coaches, because of the Browns reputation.

So last year, Parcells , the final 11 games, ... not remembering the opponents off hand, I'm going to say Parcells would have probably only gotten about 4 wins, but I think he would have at least 2 this year,
So Parcells , 6

Now!
I wanted to say, the question in my mind is where would the team be right now,if they had re-upped Crennell for another , well this would be a 4th year by now.

I think, not only would they still have Eric Wright, and a couple others, there are some on the roster now they wouldn't have, because Crennell had a style of player, as well as a style of unit, ( offense, defense, special teams unit, )
I think Crennell would have probably 5-6 wins to finish last year, ( maybe take away 1 due to McCoy ), and I think if starting a 6-7th season with the same team,

This year, with this roster, or the hypothetical roster Crennel would have had with the Browns, I think he's better than 2-2 I think he'd be 3-1 finally, through the first 4 this year.

so Crennel, I[d say 7. 4 last year, for the final 11 games, and 3 to start this season.

The Browns are in last place in the division race now, and have been since when I can't remember so, what does this matter anyway.

Yes! it is All about coaching, it is almost ALLL about coaching, and it almost always is.
Marty used to say, you have 3 phases, offense, defense, and special teams, and if you win 2 of those you usually win the game. Of course he would always say that after he beat a team he wasn't supposed to.

Remember when the Browns would beat a team they weren't supposed to?

Remember when, if they did, it actually meant something? Meaning, if they did it would actually put the Browns back in the hunt, for the playoffs/ wildcard/ division/ second round of the playoffs/ the Super Bowl?

Quote:

Smart Coach's take what the defense gives them.

First you would have to give some indications or evidence we have such a coach and I really don't believe you can do that based on the evidence at hand.

Quote:

If you have a lead and you want to try and run against unfavorable numbers, then I think that's acceptable, but I never like to play not to lose.

You really need to take another look at the game film. Thier D was not stacking 8 men in the box. The deck was not "stacked against us" to run the ball. Continuing to say that does not make it true.

You do not move up a spot and pay dearly for it to draft a RB at #3 overall and not give him the rock. A balanced attack is playing to win, to keep the oposing D on its heels, not "playing to lose". When you're within 6 points and throwing the ball at a 2-1 ratio, that's not balance.

I put forth the numbers on every other rookie QB and teams that used a balanced attack. But never mind all of that huh? Just keep "claiming" they had their D set up to stop the run, (which isn't true) and keep excusing the fact that TRich was underused when we were down by 6 points or less.

That won't change the reality of it. You use the run to set up the pass. Maybe that has something to do wuth the 40% you are speaking of?

Forgetaboutit!

Quote:

We were down by a TD with a chance to tie in a game most thought we'd get blown out in.

I'd say to a point our "gameplan" was successful.

According to that logic, it's been successful for 4 weeks in a row. So how's that workin' for ya? In case you missed it, there's a lot more to the NFL than covering the spread....

Quote:

Quote:

We were down by a TD with a chance to tie in a game most thought we'd get blown out in.

I'd say to a point our "gameplan" was successful.

According to that logic, it's been successful for 4 weeks in a row. So how's that workin' for ya? In case you missed it, there's a lot more to the NFL than covering the spread....

Yeah, it's called being a young, inexperienced team, and yet still being competitive...

We were 2-2 at this point last year, and yet I feel a whole hell of a lot better about what we've got going now than we did after 4 weeks last season...

If you think having Weeden pass twice as much as we run when we are within six points as a sound game plan, then you disagree with almost every HC in the NFL unless they have Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Drew Brees.

You can talk a good talk, but your logic doesn't measure up to the reality of having a rookie QB in his fourth start. Logic dictates you don't put the entire burden of the game on the shoulders of a QB in his fourth NFL start. Not with a Trent Richardson on your team. That's just absurd.

Excuses are just that, excuses. Can you tell me why we invested so highly in Trent Richardson, WEREN'T facing 8 men in the box and passed twice as much as we rushed when we were down by 6 points or less?

No you can't accept to say it somehow "made you feel good".

I mean it' cool if you want to sit there and spout of ratios and whatnot.

But rushing more doesn't guarantee that we would of won the game.

Logic would dictate that there would of been less time on the clock had we run it more, therefore never even getting a shot to tie the game had it played out somewhat the same.

I would also argue that had we not had so many drops, Weeden wouldn't of been throwing it so many "extra" times. But that would just be an "excuse" right?

I would also like to point out this tidbit..

PHI - 19 rushes, 1 rececptions (20)
CIN - 19 rushes, 4 receptions (23)
BUF - 12 rushes, 6 receptions (18)
BAL - 14 rushes, 4 receptions (18)

It's almost like there, I don't know, trying to ease Trent into the game plan, no?

I mean it's not like he had any sort of surgery, 2 months ago, or anything...

He had a minor scope. 4-6 weeks recovery time. You can look that up BTW

Week 4

Seattle

Pass att. 30
Rush att. 35

Miami

Pass att. 41
Rush att. 29

Washington

Pass att. 35
Rush att. 31

Browns

Pass att. 52
Rush att. 17

I know, I know...... All of the other HC's are wrong and Shurmer has it right....

By contrast?

In week 3, even the Patriots rushed 34 times against the Ravens versus 41 pass attempts. But we all know how much their HC sucks.

Easing Trent into it? Surely you jest!?

Week 1- 19 att.
Week 2- 19 att.
Week 3- 12 att.
Week 4- 14 att.

The math says you have that part backwards.

In weeks 2 and 3 TRich had a rushing TD....... So yeah, we really need to start doing that less!

Why would I have to look up that Trent had surgery, when I just mentioned that he did..?

I would point out that of Miami's 29, only 17 were their main guy Reggie Bush.

Seattle, Miami, and Washington (Wheres Indy?) all had a closer R/P ratio, Seattle even ran more than they passed (because they barely average 150 yards passing a game.)

Coincadently out of all 4 teams, only one of them won, and that was on a last second field goal. So it's almost as if our ratio had the same effect as theres!

Week 2 Trent had both a Rushing and Rec TD, and he also had a Rushing TD this passed week, nice omission though

Trent is on pace for 888 Yards and 12 TDs rushing, and 488 yards and 4 TDs recieving.. For over 1300 total yards and 16 TDs.

Not bad.

More excuses without substance. Yopu draft a RB at #3 because you plan on him to tote the rock. Not to carry well under 20 times a game.

Reggie Bush? Do you know how much punishment his body has endured over the years? And BTW- TRich only carried 14 times. Our total rushes were 17. And Bush has six full seasons of wear and tear on him. Hey, if TRich would have gotten 20 touches and nine had been shared by other RB's, we wouldn't be having this discusssion.

But no, our HC pretty much decided we were the Saints and had Drew Brees at QB.

On the surgery issue. You happen to be the one trying to use it as an "excuse" when the reality is, a full recovery from this surgery is 4 to 6 weeks. So that holds no validity. That's the part I was refering to.

Since you were using that as some excuse, I thought you may wish to educate yourself as to why you point held zero merrit. But I guess not.

Indy? Their rushes to passes ratio was still better than ours and they don't even have a real threat at RB. Since I've been doing all of your homework for you, you can look that stat up. And you know, when you don't really have a RB and still rush more than someone who drafted a RB #3 overall, that should tell you something.

But it's you, so I'm pretty sure it won't. You know better than what you're even saying but I guess it gives you something to do....

You were talking about all the rookie QBs. That's why I asked about why you excluded Indy. But I guess whatever may make your figures look better.

And it's not just about his recovery time. The guy did t play at all in preseason. You just want him to go straight into 35 carries a game? Sounds like a good way to burn him out.

I like that we are competitive regardless of our "game plan"

You'd obviously rather we run it 35 times a game regardless of the score.

Well, run the ball 35 times a game or lose.

Your full of .!

And not worth my time to debate with.

there is no magic bean.

you cannot magically say how many rushes we should be doing. in the same game, we were stuffing Baltimore, so they also abandoned the run game for large portions.

yes, I would like to find some balance, but that balance also requires us to be able to run the ball efficiently. it's not like Shurmur and Childress have shown a propensity at their other spots to not run the ball. S-Jax and Peterson both toted the rock 330+ carries for these guys.

Like I said you like to put words into someone’s mouth to make them look like liars.
You think that it makes you look big, but I think that the opposite is more to the truth.

I don’t care for that one iota.

Those words (“8 in the box“), … but what I actually said was that their defense was keying on the run.

Keying being the “KEY” word here.

While they did have some snaps facing 8 in the box, my point was that the numbers are still in their favor if they are in the base and (7) are all keying on your RUN or if they are in the nickel going up against only 6 in the first two levels. We don’t see too many nickel defenses on base downs and we also see LBers playing the run (some team’s actually like to use them to help shut down the passing game too), but in what universe does a defense fear us and respect our passing game yet?

Keying does not always equal “8 in the box“, but then you know it all so you should already know that

Do you always go to a debate so unprepared? (Half Cocked) Or do you also suffer from high altitude sickness from having your head so far up in the clouds? </berating>

Quote:

Do you always go to a debate so unprepared? (Half Cocked) Or do you also suffer from high altitude sickness from having your head so far up in the clouds? </berating>

No, I just happen to be smart enough to know if you plan to use play action and it work, you need to rush the ball more than 17 times a game unless you are way behind in the score.

We did not do that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out and all your finger pointing and attempted degrading comments doesn't change that.

There is a difference in TRich running the ball 30 times a game and our team running at least 25 times a game. To get play action to work, there has to be some balance to your attack. We didn't have any.

It's a shame that when someone has no legitimate reasoning as to why someone doesn't need to run somewhat of a balanced attack when trying to use play action, they would resort to this.

I hope you can learn to rise above this, but I do have my doubts.

Please learn to stay on subject. It really helps!

Quote:

there is no magic bean.

you cannot magically say how many rushes we should be doing. in the same game, we were stuffing Baltimore, so they also abandoned the run game for large portions.

If you look back, you will see this topic started predicated on using play action. Play action only works if your oponent fears you may actually run the ball.

Quote:

yes, I would like to find some balance, but that balance also requires us to be able to run the ball efficiently. it's not like Shurmur and Childress have shown a propensity at their other spots to not run the ball. S-Jax and Peterson both toted the rock 330+ carries for these guys.

My point to all of this is quite simple. If you aren't going to run a balanced O in your game plan, you don't bother with play action. If you look at the ratio we were running the ball even when we were within six points, it's easy to see we weren't running the ball.

DC's in this league aren't naive. It wasn't hard and won't be hard for most every DC in the league to figure this out in the future either.

So if you aren't going to run a balanced attack and are going to play a pass happy O, I have no problem with that. But do what smart and winning coaches do in those situations. Use the shotgun more to give your QB the advantage in the passing game.

We see Manning, Brees, Brady and other QB's do this when they decide to go to a mainly passing offense. It gives your QB more of an oppertunity to see those quick routes develop and to deliver them rather than being half turned faking the handoff and paying part of his attention to footwork.

If as has been stated above is true, and it is....... When you have people keying on the run, both you and your oponent pretty much know you are going to pass. Actually Florida proved my very point in some lame attempt to put me down.

We weren't going to run with the oposing D keying on the run. I guess he forgot all about what this debate centered around. play action passes

So you do one of two things. You either run more as I have suggested to "sell the play action", or you don't bother with the play action. One or the other.

The combination of not rushing the football and trying to use play action makes zero sense. And nothing anyone can say or in any way try to dismiss that will change that fact.

And in such a case, TRich should get more targets in the passing game. In yet another feeble attemp to try to dismiss it, they say "He was injurred in pre-season" so we shouldn't rush him back........

Yet I plainly have shown his attempts have went down from game one, not up. Which would be the exact opposite of what was attempted to be implied.

But sometimes people get desperate.

So it's not that I have a problem with a passing attack, but any way you slice it, when you draft a RB #3 overall, you give him 25 or more touches. Wheather it's through the air as TRich has shown a good ability at, or by rushing the ball.

But you don't rush him 14 times and a total of 17 rushed by your O and try to sell play action at the same time. That's not sound playcalling no matter what a few homers try to say.

And if you have noticed? It's only a couple of them trying to sell that swamp land in Florida.

j/c

Pat Shurmur is the worst coach I've ever seen.

His offense, ("my offense" as Mike Holmgren put it the day he fired Mangini), his game management, his awful leadership skills, his playcalling, EVERYTHING is the worst coaching job I have ever seen.

I can't wait til Junior is gone and Haslam fires these idiots.

We also have Hardesty, and Ogonbayya. Trent doesnt have to carry the whole load here.

I wouldn't go quite that far Ammo. I mean I haven't seen the poor clock management and pure rookie moves he made last year. But he does things that make no sense sometimes.

Like the couple of people who stuck up for his use of play action last week.

This week we rushed 19 times and averaged 4.4 yards per rush. Now if your rushing average is that high, why wouldn't you rush more?

But bottom line, this week we used very little play action even when we were averaging 4.4 yards per rush.

Last week we rushed 17 times and only averaged 2.5 yard average per rush and used play action like crazy.

Now why would you not use play action when you are doing well in the run game but use it quite often when you are doing poorly in the run game?

Something there just doesn't add up.......

You have trouble running the ball and you stop running the ball, use play action.

You are having some success at running the ball and actually seem to be posing a threat with your running game, so don't use play action?

2+2=6?

We used play action on that 62yd TD pass to Gordon...less is more sometimes

Also, PA means less time for your rookie statue QB to aim and throw, esp. with an inconsistent OL blocking, so I guess that's an adjustment they've made to improve the overall performance...and it did

Quote:

We used play action on that 62yd TD pass to Gordon...less is more sometimes

I agree that less is more sometimes. But from a ton to almost none may be a bit much.

Quote:

Also, PA means less time for your rookie statue QB to aim and throw, esp. with an inconsistent OL blocking, so I guess that's an adjustment they've made to improve the overall performance...and it did

Actually our pass protection was pretty good yesterday. I didn't see much inconsistancy in it at all. Zero sacks and for the most part plenty of time in the pocket.

I just believe that on such occasions as your RB has a really good play of five yards or more and you're going to pass, PA is an asset.

It's not something I feel should be overused at any time. However, there are "perfect oppertunities" to use it that you simply shouldn't neglect IMO

Once again, I feel knowing when to use it and having some balance with it is the key. I wasn't trying to advocate we use it nearly as much as last week, but we were actaully able to run the ball Sunday. And I do believe that PA should have been used more than it was.

Like I said, when you are averaging 4.4 yds per carry, play action can be effective. I think there were times it would have helped open up some intermediate targets.

I agree Ammo.

Shurmur is not "intuitive." I've often thought coaching was a mix of science and art--you have to use stats and probability sometimes, but sometimes it is intuition, timing and rhythm--like playing an instrument.

Like a good jazz musician, you have to know when and where to use the right chords (play action, 3-step drop, etc.). I don't think PS innately has that.

Pat is reportedly calling and emailing members of the media off the record who are critical of his coaching ability and decision making. Ridiculous and borderline unacceptable behavior if true.

Quote:

Pat is reportedly calling and emailing members of the media off the record who are critical of his coaching ability and decision making. Ridiculous and borderline unacceptable behavior if true.

Wouldnt surprise me. He looked like he was about to snap in his post game interview.

Quote:

It's not something I feel should be overused at any time. However, there are "perfect oppertunities" to use it

Like 3rd and 1 on their 25?

I have zero problem with throwing the ball in that situation, what I have a big problem with is emptying the backfield and having 3 guys run 2 yard routes and rolling out my immobile QB who hasn't been under pressure anyway.

You line up in a normal 1-back, 3 WR set... then run the PA and you can hit a big play there or hit a dump off for the first down. I guess that one just sticks with me and I would need somebody to explain what, if anything, we were thinking there.

That was probably the most stupid play call in terms of timing and putting your talent to use I have ever witnessed...and that includes 32 games called by Mangini

Shurmur is rather conservative in approach, so tanking there I expect him to be ULTRA conservative next game vs the Bengals...and who knows, maybe Chilly lobbied hard for this play...we don't know

Of course he's right to be mad at Weeden as any QB should know and handle the situation but the chain of fail starts with him...and ends there again at the end of the day...he has to know and MANAGE his players.....everyone knows Weeden's game..he's a confident, immobile pocket gunslinger....so taking him out of the pocket on purpose and then expect him to NOT be him is optimistic at best...I mean, how many times in the previous 4 games have we seen him throw a ball away? He's not that kind of guy....he has some Roethli/Favre to him....good AND bad, and you have to manage it accordingly...and that's Shurmur's job too, not only calling smart plays he thinks the opposition don't expect

Shurmur lost me on that one. I want him gone.

Quote:

j/c

Pat Shurmur is the worst coach I've ever seen.

His offense, ("my offense" as Mike Holmgren put it the day he fired Mangini), his game management, his awful leadership skills, his playcalling, EVERYTHING is the worst coaching job I have ever seen.

I can't wait til Junior is gone and Haslam fires these idiots.

i concur on Shurmur. The more i see him, the less i like him.

Quote:

i concur on Shurmur. The more i see him, the less i like him.

Every time he speaks my blood pressure rises. I can't even stand the sight of the guy because I think he's that bad of a coach. His use of the personnel he has is terrible because he's hell bent on running the 1990's "my offense" instead of adapting to the strengths of your personnel.

3rd and 1 is a microcosm of Shurmur's entire stay here: I can understand passing on 3rd and 1, but here's what drives me the most crazy

1) Trent's out of the game (that's obvious)
2) Ogbonnaya was lined up to the side, not behind Weeden SIGNALING AN OBVIOUS PASS PLAY. At the very least if he's lined up behind Weeden there is a threat of a run.

There are times where poor execution ruins a good play call and there are times when good execution saves a poor play call. This is an example where poor execution and a poor play call compounded themselves.

If I'm Haslam, the first thing I do is fire the Browns PR department. The second thing I do is fire Holmgren. Third is fire Shurmur.

I used to get comic relief out of Shurmur's lack of coaching ability ... but now it really angers me as well. I sense him becoming more and more of a jerk to the media and extremely arrogant (probably a defense mechanism because he realizes his job is gone). But this increasing negative attitude just makes me hate him.

Shurmur is in over his head. I get that he came into a bad situation, but at the end of the day, the team has lost 11 in a row and 14 of 15. With new ownership he is as good as gone.

I think even more damning than some of the baffling decisions he has made and the team generally not being ready to play is that I really can't think of any positives of him as a head coach. Even a lot of head coaches that fail in this league were at least successful coordinators at one point.

I would hire the guy as a QB coach and that's about it.

Quote:

We used play action on that 62yd TD pass to Gordon...less is more sometimes

Also, PA means less time for your rookie statue QB to aim and throw, esp. with an inconsistent OL blocking, so I guess that's an adjustment they've made to improve the overall performance...and it did

The only reason that PA worked was because TR had just run over them the previous scoring drive. I agree with the majority on here with the idea of making Richardson the center of the offense (not Weeden) by giving him more carries. The #3 pick of the draft should be getting the ball more anyway. The best way for Weeden to succeed will be to establish the run with TR first.

I truly hate how Shurmur abandons the run so early in the game, especially with TR on your roster. He truly doesn't know how to use what he's got and tailor an offense to his personnel. So far we've seen Shanahan, John Fox, and Jim Harbaugh willingly mold an offense around their players' abilities. Why can't Shurmur?

its something i worry about too.... idk why he doesnt....cept for Benjamin in space

well he played OC and was a qb coach...

Quote:

The only reason that PA worked was because TR had just run over them the previous scoring drive. I agree with the majority on here with the idea of making Richardson the center of the offense (not Weeden) by giving him more carries. The #3 pick of the draft should be getting the ball more anyway. The best way for Weeden to succeed will be to establish the run with TR first.

I truly hate how Shurmur abandons the run so early in the game, especially with TR on your roster. He truly doesn't know how to use what he's got and tailor an offense to his personnel. So far we've seen Shanahan, John Fox, and Jim Harbaugh willingly mold an offense around their players' abilities. Why can't Shurmur?

As I said, I run hot and cold on Shurmur... but let's be realistic for a moment... Fox and Harbaugh both inherited defenses that turned out to be stellar in their first year.. they had the flexibility to do things with their offense that we can't do. Our defense is giving up 425 yards and almost 28 points per game. It's hard for us to sustain this ground and pound, focus on the back offense if we need to score 30 points to win. We are not that dominant of a running team yet.

I agree that Shurmur seems to abandon the run too early... but if we had San Fran's defense, that would allow us to be a lot more conservative with our offense and opens up a world of possibilities.... but we don't.

Thats true...

just a thought. Long drives can wear out an offense too, and if we're forced to sustain lots of drives while the D lets a team march down the field, we're gonna have to use the pass. Its less stress on the OL, its less time consuming, and allows you to "keep up" with the opposing offense.

If you feel like you gotta score 30 to win, you gotta throw, or break off big runs. We'll get there. Just takes time.

I do think that we're passing a lot as a result of our past offense. We're still spending a lot of time shaking off defenses. Through the first 5 weeks what would teams say about our offense? They cant throw, their WRs suck and their RB is their best player. Wouldnt you struggle to run the ball too if that was how the defenses played you?

We have some belief in our pass game right now, and we're the only ones. So we have to rely on it because the run game is being overcommitted to. If we start beating teams in the air, itll open the run way more, so in this regard i get it with Shurmur...but, its a tough sell.

Now is when we'll see if teams start to respect the pass...We threw for 300 against Cincy last time. If we run the ball more this week...we'll see a Shurmur plan in action.

We did say at the beginning of the season if we dont throw the ball, teams will stack up on the run. And while teams havent started with 8 in the box...they collapse on the run quickly all the time...Theres several there in a big hurry when we do run

Quote:

Through the first 5 weeks what would teams say about our offense? They cant throw, their WRs suck and their RB is their best player. Wouldnt you struggle to run the ball too if that was how the defenses played you?

If I was a defensive coordinator tasked with stopping the Browns, I would say.... Play them straight up, no need to do anything fancy. Rush the passer hard and play the safeties fairly deep and give them the underneath stuff. They can run the ball with Richardson but not enough to beat us consistently, they have big play capability some times so don't let it go over your head... force them to go 80 yards in 10 plays on the ground and underneath passing and between errant throws, dropped passes, penalties and turnovers, most of their drives will stall on their own if we let them... and I know they can't stop our offense so we will score some points.

I agree now...that has become the new MO against our offense. Entering the year, thats what people would say.

We've shown that we can beat teams long (or are at least willing to try) so thats pulled the safeties back. We're one part in, but if you look at the LBs that we play against, they crash the LOS pretty hard every play that isnt an obvious passing down (or pass in our playbook).

http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=6201

Pat Shurmur is losing games and daily battles with the media
Oct 09, 2012 -- 6:00am

By Tony Grossi

Manage the job: This can’t go on. Or Pat Shurmur won’t make it through the year. He will implode.

The losing? Well, of course, that can’t continue. Jimmy Haslam can’t possibly profess to “bring a winning team back to Cleveland” and then stand pat as his football team rewrites the franchise record for consecutive losses.

Come next Tuesday, when Haslam is approved by the NFL as owner of the Browns, the clock officially starts ticking for all of Mike Holmgren’s men. The curtain is falling on the Big Show and it’s every man for himself.

Besides the losses, Shurmur has to stop the battles with the media, which have become a daily occurrence. Like the games themselves, he can’t win those, either.

In the last week alone, Shurmur has confronted a former Browns coach for critical comments he made on a local radio show; tossed a few F-bombs after a reporter pressed him to go on the record about Trent Richardson’s excused absence at a Browns practice; and then over-reacted to legitimate and fair questions about a game-changing play-call in the 41-24 loss to the Giants.

This follows weeks of condescending answers and comments to questions posed at his daily press conferences by media members who are trying to explain to long-suffering Browns fans – Haslam’s future customers -- why the team continues to lose, while other floundering teams such as the St. Louis Rams and Minnesota Vikings appear to be turning it around.

Where's Holmgren?: The NFL head coach has enormous responsibilities – probably more so than any of his brethren in the other pro sports. He has to manage up to 61 players and 20 assistant coaches, answer to a general manager, a president and an owner and, on top of that, serve as the face and voice of the franchise in daily meetings with the media, through thick and thin.

Like most head coaches who have gotten their first big break in Cleveland, Shurmur is stumbling through this small but important part of his job.

In my 28 years of covering the Browns and the NFL, the two coaches I’ve come across who are best at dealing with media are Bill Parcells and Holmgren.

Parcells could be a bully, but he was most effective in using humor and sarcasm to disarm strong-armed media interrogation. I never covered Parcells on a daily basis, but the many times I was exposed to him on a national level left me in awe of the way he could joust with the media and leave them laughing. If a Parcells’ press conference were offered on pay-per-view, I would buy.

Holmgren had this ability, too, in his coaching days. His press briefings were not as entertaining as Parcells’, but they were generally informative and satisfying. Holmgren was a gifted communicator, stemming from his beginnings as a school teacher. Which makes it all the more baffling to me why he hasn’t schooled Shurmur on the art of dealing with the media.

Holmgren plucked Shurmur from his agent partner Bob LaMonte’s stable of clients as the first and last coach he hired as Browns surrogate owner. I know Holmgren didn’t want to put in the long hours to coach the Browns. The least he could do was give Shurmur a remedial course on how best to represent his team and himself in front of the media. He has failed badly in tutoring Shurmur on that count.

Stop it now: I hate the conclusion of these Browns coaching regimes. They usually end the same. Crazy things happen on the field, the losses mount, and the coaches react defensively and irrationally.

One of Sam Rutigliano’s favorite lines on his speaking circuit is “Quarterbacks are like teabags. You don’t know what you’ve got till they’re in hot water.” The same can be said about head coaches.

When the heat was applied to Rutigliano, he doubted he would be fired “because I’m good for Cleveland.” Besides, “eight hundred million Chinese don’t give a damn.”

Marty Schottenheimer’s epitaph was “Play-calling is over-rated.”

Bill Belichick’s mantra was “I can only go by what I see,” but he never saw Art Modell leaving him behind when the owner fled to Baltimore.

Chris Palmer, in his final days, said, “Sometimes I feel like I’m sitting in the front seat of a runaway train.”

Butch Davis had a panic attack during his last game.

Romeo Crennel tried to save his job by proclaiming injured quarterback Brady Quinn as his starter next year, which never came.

To his credit, Eric Mangini never let the media see him sweat. He was unfailingly respectful right to the very end.

What will be Shurmur’s epitaph? He uses the line “I get it” a lot. His problem is he really doesn’t.

Who cares what the media thinks about Shurmurs responses.. They try to find a hook and then dig and dig into an already bad sore. Then they complain he's not a "nice guy" As far as Parcells goes.... He may have told jokes but he was arrogent as heck at the same time.

Go ask Belichek about why he did something in a game and see what kind of response u get. Reporter : Hey coach... are u concerned about what people are saying about your decision to go for it on 4th down on your own side of the field ??? Uh ? Uh ? How bout it ?
Coach : I made a call and it didn't work. The only thing on my mind now is getting ready for next weeks game. Next question .

Talking to the media is NOT an important part of a coach's job - it's an unfortunate and necessary evil. Kinda like the side-effect of eating is that you, unfortuantely, will have to take a dump.

Of all the skills I could list for an NFL HC, the last- the VERY last one I care about is how well they interact with the media.

Why?

Because it only really matters when your team is losing.

You can be a sarcastic bully like Parcells and get away with it as long as the wins pile up. The media will lob you softballs all day long, take any abuse you heap on them, and laugh at your zingers, because they are like a pack of wolves- they won't attack until they perceive weakness... then, they're all over you. Losing is tantamount to weakness, in their eyes.

I can only speak for myself (and maybe Daman...), but I couldn't care less what Grossi, Caboth Doerschuk and the others think of ANY of our HC's... because they can't and don't influence my opinions.

As for the list:

Prepare the team well.
Delegate authority, then hold folks accountable.
CALL A GOOD GAME
Support your players, but hold them to high standards
Take advice, but make strong decisions

I could go on, but I'm sure you see where this list is truly pointed-

.02

Quote:

Talking to the media is NOT an important part of a coach's job - it's an unfortunate and necessary evil. Kinda like the side-effect of eating is that you, unfortuantely, will have to take a dump.

Talking to the media (and by default your fans) is a more important and no doubt more frustrating part of your job when you are losing.

Win a couple games and watch how it is magically easier to talk to the media.

I think the point was that Pat should focus more on trying to win ball games than he should on making angry emails and phone calls, or pulling reporters aside off the record and insulting or cursing at them. Guy's got a really thin skin, no question.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not something I feel should be overused at any time. However, there are "perfect oppertunities" to use it

Like 3rd and 1 on their 25? I have zero problem with throwing the ball in that situation, what I have a big problem with is emptying the backfield and having 3 guys run 2 yard routes and rolling out my immobile QB who hasn't been under pressure anyway.

You line up in a normal 1-back, 3 WR set... then run the PA and you can hit a big play there or hit a dump off for the first down. I guess that one just sticks with me and I would need somebody to explain what, if anything, we were thinking there.

I have ro agree with you DC.

All we needed was a short pass over the middle and PA would have been the perfect sell on that type of play.

I've seen times it makes no sense to use it, and we use it.

I've seen perfect oppertunities to use it, and we refuse to use it.

Color me confused.

I did like the fact that we seemed to run the ball better but that would only make PA work better in cases where we really could have used it.

Quote:

Who cares what the media thinks about Shurmurs responses.. They try to find a hook and then dig and dig into an already bad sore. Then they complain he's not a "nice guy"

According to Haslam, marketing means a lot. Part of being the HC in the NFL is dealing with the press and as such, the press relaying what that message is to the fan base.

I'm not saying you have to kiss their backside by any means, but if you can't remain calm and send a strong message, it may cause you problems.

The truth is, dealing with the media is a part of the job, like it or not.

Quote:

I'm not saying you have to kiss their backside by any means, but if you can't remain calm and send a strong message, it may cause you problems.

The truth is, dealing with the media is a part of the job, like it or not.

Exactly. He's a public figure, he's one of the faces of the franchise and we, as fans, rely on his interaction with the media to get information.

Plus, every coach is going to have rough times, some more than others... the way the media treats you through those rough times will depend a lot on how you treat them... so if he wants the media to focus more on the positive, he might want to show some respect for the media. It's their job to ask tough questions, its their job to ask the obvious questions, sometimes its their job to ask stupid questions... and no matter how upset or frustrated he is, he has to answer them.

If it works, never do it again. If it doesn't work, do it repeatedly. Case in point: Deep balls to Gordon score TD's see it once, short passes to Marecic are continually dropped, do it over and over.

Haslam's first act (after firing Holmgren) should be to fire this fool. His coaching is truly offensive.

Yep.

Play action to Richardson after Cribbs big return would have been the right play.

What a jackass.

Quote:

If it works, never do it again. If it doesn't work, do it repeatedly. Case in point: Deep balls to Gordon score TD's see it once, short passes to Marecic are continually dropped, do it over and over.

Haslam's first act (after firing Holmgren) should be to fire this fool. His coaching is truly offensive.

I know, right?!!
WHY aren't we throwing 71-yard TD's on every play???

Quote:

Quote:

If it works, never do it again. If it doesn't work, do it repeatedly. Case in point: Deep balls to Gordon score TD's see it once, short passes to Marecic are continually dropped, do it over and over.

Haslam's first act (after firing Holmgren) should be to fire this fool. His coaching is truly offensive.

I know, right?!!
WHY aren't we throwing 71-yard TD's on every play???

We don't want to run up the score on people?

Quote:

If it works, never do it again. If it doesn't work, do it repeatedly. Case in point: Deep balls to Gordon score TD's see it once, short passes to Marecic are continually dropped, do it over and over.

Haslam's first act (after firing Holmgren) should be to fire this fool. His coaching is truly offensive.

I agree. We see the same issues week in and out with Shurmur's mistakes. Even if we are lucky enough to compile the same record as last year against a tougher schedule, the Browns would be better in the long haul without Shurmur.

I really hate to break it to browns fans that want Shurmur fired but the AFC has sucked so bad, we are in the wild card hunt and our schedule has eased up.

Wouldn't it be something if we went on a little bit of a run?

11-5 starts today, baby....

In terms of our own players (we have some talent on this team), schedule, the decline of the Steelers, and the now very injured Ravens ...why not?

Stranger things have happened.

Hell, my excitement level is pretty high for next week.

This team is making strides every week and that is what I want to see. There is no quit in these Dawgs and it takes a hell of a coach to keep a team that has lost 11 straight fighting week in and week out. There is a process to building a sustainable franchise. You add talent to fit your system and establish your core, you struggle through growing pains, you begin to compete and then you begin to win. The final step is winning consistently while you continue to add to your roster.

Our problem is that we were very competitive without the talent level and instead of praising this coaching staff for having them ready to do battle each week, most want it blown up for not winning with a roster that was half rookies and 2nd year players. The real world doesn't work that way.

I hope this group is allowed the opportunity to finish what they have been working towards. I have enjoyed the Hell out of this season and sadly I still havent gotten to see them win, thanks to no power today.

Remember folks, there were a lot of fire Jimmy Johnson signs in Dallas during his first 2 years as well.

Quote:

This team is making strides every week and that is what I want to see. There is no quit in these Dawgs and it takes a hell of a coach to keep a team that has lost 11 straight fighting week in and week out. There is a process to building a sustainable franchise. You add talent to fit your system and establish your core, you struggle through growing pains, you begin to compete and then you begin to win. The final step is winning consistently while you continue to add to your roster.

Our problem is that we were very competitive without the talent level and instead of praising this coaching staff for having them ready to do battle each week, most want it blown up for not winning with a roster that was half rookies and 2nd year players. The real world doesn't work that way.

I hope this group is allowed the opportunity to finish what they have been working towards. I have enjoyed the Hell out of this season and sadly I still havent gotten to see them win, thanks to no power today.

Remember folks, there were a lot of fire Jimmy Johnson signs in Dallas during his first 2 years as well.

im down with what you are saying because much as you I have been actually enjoying this year even given the results so far. Im willing to give the HC a bit more rope but he's at the end of my length though and must start to take some back.
I really think the players felt they won the game themselves and the coach was secondary to the victory. This of course was just IMHO.
I dont think they really took to Shurmur tossing Weeden under the bus last week.

j/c

The biggest problem I have with Shumur right now is that he takes things to the extreme.

Passing down? 5 Wide. Running down? 2 TEs, FB, and Greg Little at WR.

We aren't good enough to run these plays straight up and win with no deceit. No team in the NFL is that good. It's not a coincidence that we moved the ball better when we had two Wrs and Cameron or 3 WRs on the field. Especially when Weeden shows he can beat a team down field.

That being said, hopefully it is something we see more of. The playcalling today was extremely hot and cold. The end of the third and most of the fourth were simply amazing as far as strategy goes. If Shumur makes strides here, I could see him staying because I do think the team is looking a lot better.

We'll see. I'm not as staunch a "Pat must go" guy as I was before, but he's still not doing enough in my eyes to prove he should be the HC moving forward.

Good summary of the concerns with Shurmur. I would add some more, but I want to enjoy this win.

I would like him to give up the playcalling altogether. Just focus on being the head coach. We have an experienced playcaller on the staff. Let him do it.

Quote:

Wouldn't it be something if we went on a little bit of a run?

It's possible. The Colts are as inconsistent as we are... anything could happen there. The Chargers have feasted on some bad teams, beating the Raiders, Titans and Chiefs and losing to the Saints and getting pounded by the Falcons... and the Ravens have struggled and lost a lot today...

could we go into the bye at 4-5? It's possible (it seems a lot more possible than it did a week ago) but one game at a time... we could beat any of these teams... we could also lose to any (or all) of them.

Quote:

Quote:

Wouldn't it be something if we went on a little bit of a run?

It's possible. The Colts are as inconsistent as we are... anything could happen there. The Chargers have feasted on some bad teams, beating the Raiders, Titans and Chiefs and losing to the Saints and getting pounded by the Falcons... and the Ravens have struggled and lost a lot today...

could we go into the bye at 4-5? It's possible (it seems a lot more possible than it did a week ago) but one game at a time... we could beat any of these teams... we could also lose to any (or all) of them.

I just looked at the schedule and came to the same - somewhat frightening - conclusion. In fact, looking ahead at the rest of the schedule, I do not see a single game that we couldn't/shouldn't go into expecting to win. The Steelers don't scare me this year; the only two teams that even give me pause at this point is Denver & San Diego.

How's that for being over-confident at 1-5??

Love the confidence, but I fully expect to lose in Indy...the NFL has returned to being a parity league and things like gameday setup, motivation and home field etc are big to determine the winner of a game...that said, Colts got spanked yesterday on the road and we finally won our first game at home...as a betting man it's the Colts or stay away. The only positive thing is that Vegas opened the line at -3 and keeping it there despite heavy money pouring in on the Colts....somehow that makes me think we have a shot

Just don't be too shocked if we lose next sunday, Colts won at home vs GB, remember? and will come in VERY motivated and prepared after yesterday...we can win every game, but won't win every game...I'd happily take 5-5 from here on out

Oh, we could easily lose every one of the games.... but, I don't feel that it is a foregone conclusion as I used to.

What Vegas thinks means nothing to me, and the fact that they squeaked one out against Green Bay doesn't mean too much to me, either. They are susceptible to the run, and if we have Mr. Haden take away Reggie Wayne, that will limit their passing game. We are still young and making mistakes, but we're actually playing respectable football right now. We've got more than a shot at this one.

Quote:

Just don't be too shocked if we lose next sunday,

We had a pretty solid all around team effort yesterday, very few mistakes, made plays to close out a game, won a division game... nothing will shock me.

This week is a winnable game, that doesn't mean we will win it.

Quote:

Quote:

Just don't be too shocked if we lose next sunday,

We had a pretty solid all around team effort yesterday, very few mistakes, made plays to close out a game, won a division game... nothing will shock me.

This week is a winnable game, that doesn't mean we will win it.

2 ways of looking at next week:

Optimistic Side:

We just put together a complete team effort, our QB is looking good the past 5 straight weeks, and we are finally getting some pieces back healthy (with others stepping up too).

Indy just saw their QB regress (and their team destroyed) against a team that had been bad leading up to this week in the Jets.

Negative Side:

We are 1-5. Sure, we have been close, but we still haven't proven that we can get past any type of adversity as we were fortunate enough to get a lead and cling to it in the 2nd half. We still have a very young team, lots of injuries, and play pretty uneven overall.

The Colts just beat the Green Bay Packers last week. Yeah, the same team we saw annihilate the previously unbeaten Houston Texans last night.

================

The truth is somewhere in the middle, but where is the fun in that?

Quote:

The Colts just beat the Green Bay Packers last week. Yeah, the same team we saw annihilate the previously unbeaten Houston Texans last night.

They also beat the 4-2 Vikings... but they lost to Jacksonville... but they beat the Packers... but they got crushed by the Jets....

Yea, this game could go any which way.

Quote:

Quote:

The Colts just beat the Green Bay Packers last week. Yeah, the same team we saw annihilate the previously unbeaten Houston Texans last night.

They also beat the 4-2 Vikings... but they lost to Jacksonville... but they beat the Packers... but they got crushed by the Jets....

Yea, this game could go any which way.

wait, I see a pattern. they only beat NFC teams (dangit Chicago - ok, that was a fluke). or they only beat "good" teams (don't think many will argue that the Jets are better than the Packers).

if either of those hold, then we are money

I kinda look at their packers win as a result of an emotional uptick from the Pagano thing.

Home cooking does help...but i think theyre coming back to earth. W here.