We're 1-5, and 1-12 in the last 13. That's the reality right now. We can say it's a different team and that we're about to turn the corner and that very well may be the case, but J & J are looking at the team right now, not in the future. Today, their thinking is evidently something like, "He's a really nice guy, but this nice guy isn't getting it done. We need a championship caliber head coach."
But we are 1-5, not 0-6. The team hasn't quit and we actually may be about to turn the corner. We have Haden back, Brown played well last week, Rubin is back, for the first time in a long time LB's are a strength not a weakness, and our D-line is really coming on strong. Of key importance, we're winning the turnover battle. Weeden is improving every week, the WR corps (including TEs) is starting to produce, the O-line is jelling and has performed well recently, and we do have a decent running game. Most importantly, we're putting points on the board. The past week, we saw for the first time excellent production in all three phases, and that has to continue if we are going to continue to win.
I am no a Shurmur fan, my big knock on him is his (evidently) complete lack of game planning, and his inability to make half time adjustments. You can add to that his questionable play calling at key moments, his inability to manage the clock at the end of the half and end of the game, and his lack of killer instinct.
Do I want to see him fired? Not today. Can he take us to the promised land? I don't know, but if he does, I'll love him forever. It appears that he's a decent teacher, and it's apparent that he has the team working hard for him. If that can translate into wins, perhaps with the help of Dick & Chilly, he can grow and improve on his other responsibilities.
I think it's fair to say that most of us don't want to go through another rebuild, don't want to see the team blown up, don't want to see Heckert fired. PROVIDED, that the wins come, and that it can be proven in the W-L column that we are on the right track, that Weeden is the QB of the "future", and that our team will get better by allowing Heckert to add a few pieces this off season on offense and defense, (CB, DE, S, LB, & WR) and on into the future.
At this point I think Heckert has a better chance of sticking than Shurmur does, but if Shurmur is fired, you can practically bet that Chilly & Jauron are gone too, and if Shurmur doesn't win enough games to keep his job, it's highly probable that Heckert will find himself drafting for another team next year. (Personally, I think if that happens, it will be the newest regime's first MAJOR mistake.) So in my mind, it's likely that Shurmur and the team are playing for not just Shurmur's job, but for Heckert's, Chilly's, Jauron's and possibly even Weeden's as well. (A new HC will likely clean house, and J & J may want a young QB and their own GM.)
So, with so much on the line, (possibly the immediate future of the franchise, 3-5 years,) how many wins will it take for Shurmur to keep his job, and which games will those be?
Remaining schedule and my predictions:
@Colts - W
Chargers - W
Ravens - W
@Cowboys - L
Steelers - W
@Raiders - W
Chiefs - W
Redskins - L
@Broncos - L
@Steelers - W
This would put us at 8-8. Is that enough to get everyone another year? Is 7-9, 6-10? Personally, I don't believe 5-11 would be.
Thoughts?
SHOULD be 8-8
Probably would save his job at 6-10 or 7-9.
I think more than this record will indicate is how we play in those wins or losses. 1-2 blowouts would seal his fate no matter what the record imo.
He's going to have to get this team winning or there is no way he gets another year.
Quote:
He's going to have to get this team winning or there is no way he gets another year.
That's a given, and fair and reasonable, I would say.
I think that we need 7 wins, plus a much more effective looking team, in order to see Shyurmur back nest year.
If the team looks like one of those teams ready to make a huge step forward next year, then I think that he stays.
Luckily for him, I think that we'll wind up with 6-8 wins.
My money is on the head shot-callers already compiling lists. For Shurmur to save his job, the answer to the question of how many wins will it take to do that is:
Too many.
He's going to have to blow away the executives. He's not been a great coach leading bad players. He's been a developmental coach leading bad players while making mistakes along the way. With a regime change, he's got to really show he's a difference maker. That means he's going to have to do the unexpected, and that means he's going to have to have a winning record over the remaining games.
I think playoffs is the ONLY way he saves his job.
Come on, we all read or heard the pressers. These guys promised results in a short period of time.
Shurmur and Heckert are gone unless we make the playoffs.
They will not hitch their wagons and reps to people they didn't choose.
LIST the "bad" players Toad, I want names...with Great, Good, above AVG, AVG, below AVG, bad, terrible as lables compared to the rest of the starters in the league (an AVG G is 30th-34th best G out of 64 starting Gs, a good RB is 10th best out of 32 etc, a bad WR is 50th out of 64 starting WRs etc)
Since you think we have more BAD players starting than good ones, stick your neck out for once and tell us who they are
Waiting...
quality over quantity.
if we are competitive in all our games and we go 3-3 in the division, then he's got a good shot if Haslam/Banner do not already have something in store for the team (which they very well may)
I'll just answer for him...
It depends on what kind of BAD you are talking about. There's two discussions in one discussion here. We are 1-5 and that's BAD. Holgrem is BAD. RG3 is good. Holmgren is bad for not getting RG3. Now did we have options? YES, we did. I was available to play RDE. Would I have been better? That's not the point. The point is Rishuz was also available. Now if you're talking about BAD, we are BAD. The record is BAD. We have no talent so we are BAD.
Does that answer your question? 
This next game will tell the story. If the players step up and get a win here then I think we could get on a roll. If they lose this next game I think things will unravel very fast.
I really dont see how Shurmur stays. They will as you mentioned want to be able to say these are our guys. I hope Heckert stays too.
Here is how i can see this playing out
Remaining schedule and my predictions with a colts win:
@Colts - W
Chargers - W
Ravens - L
@Cowboys - L
Steelers - W
@Raiders - W
Chiefs - W
Redskins - L
@Broncos - L
@Steelers - L
Puts us at 6-10 which is actually 1 game better then I thought we would be. I also think we have a chance to win the Ravens Cowboys and Skins games but I had to put down what I think will happen not what could. If we took 2 of those 3 then a much more promising 8-8.
Now if we lose to the Colts
Remaining schedule and my predictions:
@Colts - L
Chargers - L
Ravens - L
@Cowboys - L
Steelers - W - we've been playing them tough at home lately
@Raiders - L
Chiefs - W
Redskins - L
@Broncos - L
@Steelers - L both teams have packed it in at this point. We just have more packing to do.
3-13 and we all know what that means. Alot more
Quote:
quality over quantity.
if we are competitive in all our games and we go 3-3 in the division, then he's got a good shot if Haslam/Banner do not already have something in store for the team (which they very well may)
3 divisional wins and ending with a 3-13 record won't get it done. I have to believe that there will be real evaluation at the end of the season and that J & J were not just paying lip service. If this team were to go 7-9 or 8-8 with 2-3 divisional wins, it would be very difficult to can the operation and start over, regardless of what J & J think they may want to do as of today. I believe the future, (one more year,) of the current staff rests in the hands of the players & coaches.
Quote:
More than one.
Wins, plural. 
Quote:
This next game will tell the story. If the players step up and get a win here then I think we could get on a roll. If they lose this next game I think things will unravel very fast.
The upcoming game is a very winnable game. If we don't win it, then it all may be moot anyway. You have to win the games you're expected to win and if Shurmur & Co. can't pull this one out coming off a win, I think he basically seals their fate.
How does Shurmur save his job?
Make the playoffs.
Playoff hunt is wide open this year. Other teams have rallied from bigger deficits. To hell with starting 0-5.
Given the stellar performance of the AFC, do you think 7-9 or 8-8 will get us to the playoffs?
Quote:
Given the stellar performance of the AFC, do you think 7-9 or 8-8 will get us to the playoffs?
unless it's to win the division which also isn't likely that 8-8 wins it, no.
I think 9-7 wins at least one wild card though.
Can he only lose two from here on out? That saves his job, easily.
It's amazing how big tomorrow is. It is only one game, but this thing keeps rolling if they win. If they lose, there are absolutely no doubts he's gone.
Quote:
It's amazing how big tomorrow is. It is only one game, but this thing keeps rolling if they win. If they lose, there are absolutely no doubts he's gone.
I honestly wonder how heavily this notion weighs on them.
Quote:
Quote:
It's amazing how big tomorrow is. It is only one game, but this thing keeps rolling if they win. If they lose, there are absolutely no doubts he's gone.
I honestly wonder how heavily this notion weighs on them.
It should, and maybe that will help them maintain focus, and to have urgency.
Which wasn't there when they played Buffalo. It was almost like they thought they could just show up because they found some offense the week before.
It's the NFL, every week is a grind. You can't take certain weeks off.
We saw it last year. They played horrible in games against St. Louis and Oakland, yet they showed up and played Pittsburgh tough in both games.
Quote:
that means he's going to have to have a winning record over the remaining games.
So you're down at 7-9?
Quote:
It should, and maybe that will help them maintain focus, and to have urgency.
I think we saw this for the first time against Cincy. And I think the pending new ownership had something to do with it. As you allude, they have to maintain it and they have to play three-phase football or it's basically over for them. The hot seat doesn't get much hotter.
Quote:
Quote:
It should, and maybe that will help them maintain focus, and to have urgency.
I think we saw this for the first time against Cincy. And I think the pending new ownership had something to do with it. As you allude, they have to maintain it and they have to play three-phase football or it's basically over for them. The hot seat doesn't get much hotter.
That's kinda what I'm gettin at though. They showed up big last week against against a team with a better record, an in-division game. It was stacked against them.
This week against the Colts, by all means, should be won if they play as well as they have played through the first 6.
D'Qwell Jackson said it best when he said that they have to learn to handle winning. Handle being on an even slate, and not having everything going against you to the point where you can use it as motivation.
I know they're not favored, but I think we feel like if we play our game, we win. I don't feel like the odds are stacked heavily against us. So you can't play that us against the world card.
He needs 7 more wins to even CONSIDER saving his job.
From what I have seen and heard so far I don't think saving his job has anything to do with wins or losses.
The only thing that matters is what Joe Banner thinks.
I believe that if he hasn't got his mind made up already he will by the bye week.
I hope Shurmur stays because if he doesn't then you know damn well these guys won't be able to resist blowing things up. Again. And I won't be sticking around to watch that saga unfold again. Too old and too tired to watch that crap all over again.
At 7-9, I think it would be very difficult to say that this team is not on the right track with a rookie QB and so many rookies and second year players starting.
Quote:
I don't think saving his job has anything to do with wins or losses.
Seriously, Otto? I have a hard time believing you believe that. Shurmur has to win games to save his job, because if he doesn't, if we go 1-15, 2-14, 3-13, 4-12, or 5-11, you can practically guarantee that black Monday will be his final day.
As I said, I think Banner already has his mind made up. I could be wrong, God knows that's happened plenty of times before. But I think his fate is already sealed.
If I was forced to bet, I'd bet that Shurmur is gone, Heckert stays (with a short leash and only if he can't get a better job someplace else. I don't think he and Banner get along - no matter what they both say). I'd also bet that Banner goes after an up and coming coach like Jay Gruden to make HIS new head coach. That would mean an all new staff and probably an all new team.
If Heckert stays and most of the staff remains intact we could be OK. If not, it's gonna be 1999 all over again. And that would be OK if it meant I got to be 13 years younger as well. But I won't be. And I'm not blowing another 10 years of ticket buying and swearing at my TV waiting for us to get good.
Only time will tell.
6-10 or 7-9 and being competitive in every game
Quote:
Quote:
that means he's going to have to have a winning record over the remaining games.
So you're down at 7-9?
If Shurmur goes 6-4 over the last ten games I think that would warrant serious consideration of him keeping his job.
I assume that's what you asked.
Sorry, Dj, you're carrying a bone and a grudge over from other threads which doesn't have anything to do with the question of how many wins I think it'd take to save Shurmur's job. This fish ain't bitin' Keep waiting. 
I don't see us winning 7 games in the next 10. Winning 4 or 5 feels more reasonable but there's still reasonable doubt to me that we could win that many games down the stretch. Its these coming weeks that will spell out Shurmur's future, either in bland or spectacular fashion. I think with the body of work we've seen thus far, I have little confidence in Shurmur to bring this team to the level it will need to play at for him to keep his job. I'd love to see the team and Shurmur prove me wrong.
I consider myself pretty level headed and optimistic about this team.
But Shurmur must go. The NFL rewards offensive aggression 9/10 times and this guy is punting on 4th and 1? He doesn't even attempt 2 minute drills.
This team could have easily put up 30 points today with a more aggressive playcaller.
You may be right. Absolutely puzzled. We needed to be more aggressive on the playcalling side and on defense. Putrid performance today. Beyond disgusting.
Pictures of Haslams tirade are up on the Post Game Thoughts thread!
I posted this in the post game which needs to be stated here to anybody who thinks that keeping this staff is better for the franchise.
When you finish with one of the worst records in the league, how much of a setback can you get from last place?
I was really hoping we were building on something from last week.
It was all undone with the loss today. Simply inexcusable to lose to the Colts if we are a team on the upswing.
This is on the staff.
Cya.
Quote:
I posted this in the post game which needs to be stated here to anybody who thinks that keeping this staff is better for the franchise.
When you finish with one of the worst records in the league, how much of a setback can you get from last place?
You get setback five years. So the new FO can bring in "their guys".
Then when it does not work in two years.
Us fans get restless.
Fire everybody.
Rinse, wash, repeat, etc...... 
Prolly two years from perhaps playoff contention with these players and some added pieces. IMO.
If whomever they bring in to replace our wuss of a coach.
Blows up the entire chemistry that is starting to take hold.
( minus some players IMO.)
And brings in his own guys.
Expect another 7 years of crap football.
We are talking about the Browns right?
If it were any other team.
We might make one of those incredible worst to first Cinderalla stories that are fabled to happen to some teams. 
I think Hanner will act swiftly.
No doubt they are becoming fans of Weeden just like the rest of the world.
They know his shelf life isn't as long as others.
They recognize this.
I hate losing games in ANY fashion.. but the ones you think you should win.. they really hurt..
Shurmur's job is as good as gone now..
Weeds is gonna have to keep this offense motivated.
Quote:
I think Hanner will act swiftly.
No doubt they are becoming fans of Weeden just like the rest of the world.
They know his shelf life isn't as long as others.
They recognize this.
i think it will take 9 more wins
If we can't beat the Colts we know that's not happening.
Quote:
Quote:
I posted this in the post game which needs to be stated here to anybody who thinks that keeping this staff is better for the franchise.
When you finish with one of the worst records in the league, how much of a setback can you get from last place?
You get setback five years. So the new FO can bring in "their guys".
Then when it does not work in two years.
Us fans get restless.
Fire everybody.
Rinse, wash, repeat, etc......
Prolly two years from perhaps playoff contention with these players and some added pieces. IMO.
If whomever they bring in to replace our wuss of a coach.
Blows up the entire chemistry that is starting to take hold.
( minus some players IMO.)
And brings in his own guys.
Expect another 7 years of crap football.
We are talking about the Browns right?
If it were any other team.
We might make one of those incredible worst to first Cinderalla stories that are fabled to happen to some teams.
I believe you meant to use purple, because you can't be serious to think that we are a couple years from playoff contention with this staff. You can easily chock up 3 losses this year on coaching alone. Just because we fire the staff doesn't mean that they have to do a 20-30 player turnover. Everybody in the league knows we have the youngest roster in the NFL and with game film can see that the player foundation is there. Shurmur is a coach that manages to not lose as opposed to playing to win. I've not seen one call made from the gut for the win so far this year. He's entirely too heady and trying to outsmart the other sideline, which in turn makes HIM look like the idiot.
I totaly agree that Shurmur needs to go after this week.
Never said not to fire him.
I have not been a fan of his.
But neither was I on the fire everyone bandwagon that everyone is so quick to jump on like clockwork every two years.
I am so beyond sick and tired of the "groundhog day" situation this team keeps going thru.
Why not, even with a gutless coach, stick out just one of these 5 year plans?
I mean heck. Even Mangini did not get a snowballs chance to complete his team before everyone was screaming to blow it all up.
Remember when we had a punishing running game.
Does anyone have something new and fresh to add that we have not heard before?
What could be worse? I guess I do not know.
But I know it may not make anything better either.
It seems that is the only way we get any positive excitment.
Is to go with the shiny new and unknown all the time.
To use a bad quote.
How's that hopey changey thing working out so far?
J/C
Well, imo I think one play just sealed Pat's fate. 4th down. Time running down in the 4th. Seemed like the browns had some momentum. The browns were lining up to go for it on 4th down. Then they wasted a time out. And then they came out and punted the ball. The camera then showed Haslam. It was a look of disgust. That one play is not the character of this owner.
My biggest problem with the punt was all about possible field position.
even a pooch would most likely roll into the endzone..ball at the 20..punter angles it out of bounds.......ball at the 20.
It was a 20 yard NET.
Ball at the 40...or ball at the 20.....or first down and rolling. Got to trust your OLINE sooner or later...if you can't get 1 yard with the game on the line.....then you probably deserve to loose.....
Trent was benched for 8 carries and 8 yards.....give him 9 carries for 9 yards...and you very likely win this game IMO.
HACK
Quote:
J/C
Well, imo I think one play just sealed Pat's fate. 4th down. Time running down in the 4th. Seemed like the browns had some momentum. The browns were lining up to go for it on 4th down. Then they wasted a time out. And then they came out and punted the ball. The camera then showed Haslam. It was a look of disgust. That one play is not the character of this owner.
I agree with you and Hack below you. This was the worst thing he could have done. I will say this. I dont think it matters how many wins he gets because I dont see him getting beyond the bye week. We cant let Shurmur run/ruin this team any longer.
The players need to have something to play for and punting in that situation was playing scared. You have to go for it. You just missed what would have been a sure TD your players are pumped give them a chance to back it up.
Hows it go
Better to have played to win and lost then not to have played at all.
Quote:
Sorry, Dj, you're carrying a bone and a grudge over from other threads which doesn't have anything to do with the question of how many wins I think it'd take to save Shurmur's job. This fish ain't bitin' Keep waiting.
Lol, what "grudge"? the RDE you "owned" me in? ot those crap Gs that kept getting better and are keeping a rook pocket QB clean?
I keep calling you out because you're as committed as the wind....grow a pair and give me names. You obviously have a strong opinion, so where's the backing up when called out?
Still waiting...
I don't think it matters. I'm basically sure that Shurmur and Heckert are toast and that's even if the win out the season.. at this point, the best we could be is 11-5. That may or may not get us into the playoffs. (probably would) I think that's about the only thing that will save all their jobs..
At 1-6 the answer to how many wins will it take to save Shurmur's job is 9 straight.
How about just ONE win.
One at a time.
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, Dj, you're carrying a bone and a grudge over from other threads which doesn't have anything to do with the question of how many wins I think it'd take to save Shurmur's job. This fish ain't bitin' Keep waiting.
Lol, what "grudge"? the RDE you "owned" me in? ot those crap Gs that kept getting better and are keeping a rook pocket QB clean?
I keep calling you out because you're as committed as the wind....grow a pair and give me names. You obviously have a strong opinion, so where's the backing up when called out?
Still waiting...
Good luck with that he will twist and wind every which way to keep from being pinned down and actually making a stand or sometimes even stating an opinion.
Skip Bayless does the same thing. No matter what he says, he can never be wrong because he hedges his bets.
Quote:
J/C
Well, imo I think one play just sealed Pat's fate. 4th down. Time running down in the 4th. Seemed like the browns had some momentum. The browns were lining up to go for it on 4th down. Then they wasted a time out. And then they came out and punted the ball. The camera then showed Haslam. It was a look of disgust. That one play is not the character of this owner.
Put a fork in 'em. He's done.
That is possibly the most baffling call I have ever seen. I mean with all sincerity he should be fired on the spot. I would say the players should have called time out, circled around him, spit in his face, and run for the first down, but that isnt how the world works. If football had mutinies that is the time for one.
I want a coach to be hired who will explicitly say "Being aggressive in playcalling is important. Going for it on fourth down is important. I will slit throats and score needless points. I seek to score as many points as possible"
Man that call really really annoyed me. He has no business being paid millions of dollars to make calls. Millions of madden playing teenagers could do a better job, and I am seriously not being hyperbolic. That was ridiculous.
jc...
Don't know how many caught the Banner/Haslam presser...in it, Haslam says, if this team is not winning in 5 yrs, Haslam will take responsibility.
I would say Banner and Haslam have already decided to tear this franchise apart and start over with their people.
IMO, it comes down to egos...if Haslam and Banner kept the present coaching staff and core group of players, people would give credit to Holmgren and Heckert when the team beginning winning in 2013.
I always believed the team would be competitive, maybe with a .500 record next season and challenging for the playoffs in 2014.
If Banner and Haslam stay the course, the Browns could be challenging for the playoffs in 2 yrs...those are reasonable expectations, if Banner and Haslam continue the rebuilding process started by Holmgren and Heckert in 2010.
If the "egos" can't allow Holmgren and Heckert to get any of the credit for rebuilding this team, they will tear down much of what was established by Holmgren and Heckert and ask the fans for another 5 yrs.
What is ironic, Haslam claims to have learned "the Rooney Way" while minority owner of the Steelers. When the Steelers stopped making changes to their franchise, both on the coaching side and management side and made a commitment to rebuild their roster via the draft, they began winning.
Dan Rooney hired Chuck Noll, his second choice to fill the HC position in 1969 (Joe Paterno turned the job down) and it was Art and Dan Rooney with Chuck Noll, who rebuilt the Steelers roster, via the draft and stopped the changes.
The Steelers actually got worse under Noll, which was hard to do, since the season before Noll took over, the Steelers went 2-11-1. In Noll's first season, the Steelers won 1 game.
Many point to Holmgren's record or 10 wins and 28 losses while he was in charge as a reason for the Browns to once again make drastic changes.
Anyone know what the Steelers 3 yr record was after the 3rd year of their rebuilding plan?...anyone ?
The Rooneys and Noll had a 3 yr record of 12 wins and 30 losses, very near what the Brown record is under Holmgren. Teams that do a complete rebuild of the roster via the draft, do not win in the 3rd year of the rebuild.
But hey, Browns fans can't understand what a 5 year rebuilding plan looks like...but you better learn, because Haslam and Banner are very likely to start another 5 yr plan rather than finish the plan Holmgren and Heckert started.
You see, EGOS must be fed and they are a higher priority for those in charge than producing a winning team for our fans as soon as possible.
It won't be a complete rebuild. Heckert has done a fairly good job of assembling talent. I think him finding Gordon in the supplemental draft bought him another year. We have a QB, we sure look like we have some receivers, we have a couple of running backs. We're a few bricks shy of a load on defense but you can't build it all at once.
My bet is Heckert stays and Shurmur is unemployed. They'll probably wait until the end of the year to fire Shurmur but, really, who could blame Haslam if he did it this morning? The only thing saving Shurmur's bacon right now is that the new owner probably isn't fool enough to blow up everything so early and send a signal to the fans that the season is officially doomed. The thing about that is we already know it because we've seen it all before.
Quote:
My bet is Heckert stays and Shurmur is unemployed. They'll probably wait until the end of the year to fire Shurmur but, really, who could blame Haslam if he did it this morning?
Here is the question right now: do the players care about Shurmur?? You can look at the history of the NFL- there are many coaches that the players fought hard for and somehow dispite all odds managed to save the coaches job with some wins at the end of the season. The thing is, it looked like the defense decided to quit yesterday before the game even started. They were flat and uninspired. This team kind of has its fate in its own hands. IF they continue to play hard for Shurmur, win or lose- as long as they are competitive and in games they might stay the course. BUT the players see these bone head play calls too- it must be deflating to punt from the 40 after calling a time out....
So the next logical question is- do we have a lame duck coach?? IF we do, again- the players are going to quit, and it will get ugly. So these next two games are huge for Pat. San Diego really isn't playing all that well right now. Baltimore is banged up. Maybe the browns steal these two games and go into the bye with a warm, happy fealing. Quit on these two games- Chilli might be in charge against Dallas. (I have had enough of Chilli in vikes land, that doesn't excite me one bit....)
One last thing- When reading the press conference of Haslam\Banner- the things they said about how to build a team is pretty much what Holmgren and Heckert have been doing. Build thru the draft, sign your own guys and use free agency wisely. I really hope that Heckert somehow survives this house cleaning. All things concidered, i think he has done a pretty good job with his drafts. There have been misses, every team will have those. Look at his last draft- very good value so far. Keep Heckert please!!!
Quote:
It won't be a complete rebuild. Heckert has done a fairly good job of assembling talent. I think him finding Gordon in the supplemental draft bought him another year. We have a QB, we sure look like we have some receivers, we have a couple of running backs. We're a few bricks shy of a load on defense but you can't build it all at once.
with the way Weeden, Gordon and Schwartz have been playing, Heckert at least has an argument (along with the other young talent he assembled). He is going to have to explain trading up to take an injured RB who has been too injured to provide a real boost.
it'll be an interesting offseason for sure. hopefully, we can have more interest in the play on the field though because we've got half a season before that time starts.
Quote:
You see, EGOS must be fed and they are a higher priority for those in charge than producing a winning team for our fans as soon as possible.
So what you are saying is that the Rooney's and Chuck Noll had big egos so they tore apart whatever they had built and started over?
Under Chuck Noll, they had a miserable first year, which is to be expected.. in year 2 they improved from 1 win to 5.. in year 3 they improved from 5 wins to 6... in year 4 they improved from 6 wins to 13...
So let's compare... In Holmgren/Heckert's first year we stayed the same as the year before at 5 wins (so clearly they started with a lot more talent than the Steelers and Noll did)... in year 2 we regressed to 4 wins... in year 3 we are on pace to regress to 3 wins...
From year 1 on, the Steelers were moving forward, we have been moving backward...... Yea, I see the correlation.
Quote:
He is going to have to explain trading up to take an injured RB who has been too injured to provide a real boost.
Until the last two weeks when he's shown some spark and he's from Tn, so you can bet Haslam knows Hardesty and is a fan of his.
So basically, I doubt that has any bearing on it at all.
Honestly, I think that heckert and Shurmur and perhaps the entire coaching staff is gone unless they get to the playoffs and even then, I'm not sure if they stay.
banner has the look of a weasel ( not that that should matter) but he kinda sounds like one also, so honestly, I'll give the guy a break, but as of this moment, I'm not in love with him...
Quote:
I think playoffs is the ONLY way he saves his job.
Ditto
How many wins till it take to save Shurmur's job?
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
It doesn't matter, he'll bite himself in the butt long before he gets there.
I am one of I think 3 Shurmur fans at our last support Pat meetins lol He is toast. I think he is a good coach but he has no balls and Haslam is an aggressive personality. Not going for it on the 4th and 1 sealed his fate. You play to win the game, you dont play not to lose.
Quote:
I am one of I think 3 Shurmur fans at our last support Pat meetins lol He is toast. I think he is a good coach but he has no balls and Haslam is an aggressive personality. Not going for it on the 4th and 1 sealed his fate. You play to win the game, you dont play not to lose.
I agree and I have been on Shurmur from last year. I just dont how he manages games. Funny thing is going deep on 2 and 1 is considered a good gamble.
Coach 1 pt
Going for it deep on 3rd and 1 would seem to be agressive playcalling and it almost worked. Again Coach 1 pt
The 4th down part was when he really blew it. If your going to punt you dont call TO you let the clock hit 0 take the 5yd pen and punt.
If you call TO you HAVE To go for it. Players are pumped its game time. Well not for him.
I want Shurmur to do good. I want Shurmur to show improvement as a coach but as all other things Browns, what I want is usually nothing near what actually does happen.
punting made no sense considering our D had trouble all day. It made less sense considering the down and distance and it was horrible considering where we were on the field. Calling Timeout was a Romeo move. It was not a bad decision. It was a really stupid decision. You can't defend stupid.
Had we gone for it, I would have understood the timeout... make sure everybody is on the same page with the play call... but to call timeout and then punt showed lack of decision making ability and weakness. He absolutely positively should have known when he called for the deep ball on 3rd down, if this isn't successful we are going to........ That should have been predetermined. This points to one of the biggest problems a lot of people have with Pat, it's like he doesn't think beyond the next play, there is no grand plan that he is trying to achieve... call one play, then figure out what to do next.
While the timeout then punt was unprofessional, if he decided that he shouldn't go for it, then why compound your mistake by going for it just because you called timeout? Whether or not going for it was the right thing to do is one thing, and it made me irritated as heck, too, but if he decided that going for it wasn't the right thing to do, it's better that he punted it away than going for it just to save face.
Quote:
How Many Wins Will it Take to Save Shurmur's Job?
Hold on, let me take a timeout to consider this appropriately...
Eleventy.
Quote:
but if he decided that going for it wasn't the right thing to do, it's better that he punted it away than going for it just to save face.
It was 3rd and 1 and he decided to take a shot... something I applauded him for at the time.. 1 of 4 things could happen:
1. connect for a big play or a TD, no decision to make
2. get sacked making it 4th and long, no decision to make (punt)
3. connect on something underneath for a first down, no decision to make
4. incomplete in which case you have 4th and 1.
My point is, why wasn't the go/no go decision already made in case the pass was incomplete (which was the most likely scenario of the group)? If he was unsure about whether to go for it or not, then run a play to get the first down... my gripe is not the timeout or even the punt.. it's that we had 2nd and one and needed a touchdown to win... and it seems like our coach couldn't think beyond the next play...
Quote:
My point is, why wasn't the go/no go decision already made in case the pass was incomplete (which was the most likely scenario of the group)? If he was unsure about whether to go for it or not, then run a play to get the first down... my gripe is not the timeout or even the punt.. it's that we had 2nd and one and needed a touchdown to win... and it seems like our coach couldn't think beyond the next play...
yes, I agree with this.
Plus, the sideline throw to Benjamin again was stupid... seems not only can he not think past the current play, he can't think back to the previous ones, either. (Let's throw it in the flat to the fullback.)
I agree as well. I liked the call of deep on 3rd that caught Indy totally off guard. But to not have already had a call in place in case it failed was foolish. He should have been telling players that needed to be in be ready and tell so and so to get out.
He seemed more like well darn we should have had that wonder what I should do now. Once he called TO there is no other option but to go for it. He 2nd guessed his own choice and that is not what leaders do.
You dont go for the bomb on 3rd and 1 if u arent ready to go for it on 4th, just dumb.
Quote:
While the timeout then punt was unprofessional, if he decided that he shouldn't go for it, then why compound your mistake by going for it just because you called timeout? Whether or not going for it was the right thing to do is one thing, and it made me irritated as heck, too, but if he decided that going for it wasn't the right thing to do, it's better that he punted it away than going for it just to save face.
If he decided that he shouldn't go for it that's bad; deciding not to go for it after calling a TO/actually having time to think it over is downright awful. People keep talking about momentum, calling a timeout, being 1-5, and a bunch of other things but the most important thing is that it was a horrendously bad decision from a percentage to win standpoint. i.e. probably the worst you will see from any coach in the NFL all year
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2012/10/a-week-of-weak-decisions.html
Quote:
There were a plethora of interesting coaching decisions this week, especially in the early games on Sunday. Avid readers cringe at these conservative calls so let's look at a few of them a little closer.
Cleveland Browns: Punted on 4th-and-1 on the Indy 41-yard line down by four with a little over six minutes remaining.
On what was likely the worst decision of the day, the Browns cut their expected win probability almost in half by punting. On 4th-and-1 from the opponent's 41, you should almost always go for it. You are expected to score +1.58 points by going for it (74% league-wide conversion rate) versus -0.04 points by punting.
But, when you're losing in the 4th quarter, that decision becomes even more obvious. A punt means only a 24% chance of winning the game -- only 6% more than a failed conversion. This is because a punt from that spot nets you a maximum of 40 yards and more likely closer to 20. A successful conversion means a 45% chance of winning. The numbers say to go for it unless you think you can convert fewer than one in four.
The Browns would actually get the ball back, as Pat Shurmur had planned, but they would ultimately fall to the Colts. The fact that they got the ball back does not mean it was the correct decision.
As an aside, 74% conversion rate there is a bit optimistic as there is a selection bias involved (teams are more likely to go for it 4th and inches than 4th and 1 and a half), but even with a very, very conservative 50% chance of converting it would still be an awful decision.
Quote:
Quote:
How Many Wins Will it Take to Save Shurmur's Job?
Hold on, let me take a timeout to consider this appropriately...
Eleventy.
Hahaha! 
I'm thinking, as it sits today, 12.
Quote:
You dont go for the bomb on 3rd and 1 if u arent ready to go for it on 4th, just dumb.
Bingo.
just clickin'...
Fort hangs onto that Vic pass in the endzone at the end of that game, Little catches that pass in the endzone vs Baltimore and Gordon makes that catch in the endzone yesterday and we have none of these conversations.
We are those three plays away from being 4-2 instead of 1-6. That's how close this team is. And in addition, we've had many other opportunities as well. Not just those three plays. It always cooks down to execution. This is a young team. They need to learn to play and grow with each other.
It'll be a shame to see it all torn down and "rebuilt" once again. And just as shameful to lay all the blame on a young head coach who even though he makes his own share of blunders is not nearly as solely responsible as some trumpet on here.
Again, my biggest problem with Shurmur is not pure tactics, or play calling. It is the undisciplined manner in which his teams have played the game.
We have been unable to run the ball with any consistency at all, and this is despite having excellent talent at RB.
Our special teams are horrible, mainly because we make so damn many mistakes on teams.
We are 5th in the NFL for most penalties, with 50. That's over 7 per game. We have lost 462 yards in penalties, which is 4th worst in the NFL. That's 66 yards/game lost ..... mainly on stupid, mental mistakes.
By comparison, in 2010, we had 78 penalties for 675 yards for the entire year. We're on pace for over 1000 yards in penalties this year. We might not even have a 1000 yard rusher .... but we'll try our best to have 1000 yards in penalties. That is horrible. It's also coaching. In 2009 we had 77 penalties for 678 yards. We do have a young team, but the coaching staff needs to make sure that the players understand that stupid mistakes are just that .... stupid.
How many times have we jumped offsides on a 4th and short where it was obvious that the ball was never going to be snapped? It happened yesterday. I think that it's happened 3 or 4 times so far this year. That's horrible. It's coaching.
We make an inordinate number of mistakes. This has to change, and the coaching staff has to change it. This is their biggest weakness.
Quote:
Fort hangs onto that Vic pass in the endzone at the end of that game, Little catches that pass in the endzone vs Baltimore and Gordon makes that catch in the endzone yesterday and we have none of these conversations.
We are those three plays away from being 4-2 instead of 1-6. That's how close this team is. And in addition, we've had many other opportunities as well. Not just those three plays. It always cooks down to execution. This is a young team. They need to learn to play and grow with each other.
It'll be a shame to see it all torn down and "rebuilt" once again. And just as shameful to lay all the blame on a young head coach who even though he makes his own share of blunders is not nearly as solely responsible as some trumpet on here.
This should be re-posted every time someone starts to moan and groan about this team.
Quote:
just clickin'...
Fort hangs onto that Vic pass in the endzone at the end of that game, Little catches that pass in the endzone vs Baltimore and Gordon makes that catch in the endzone yesterday and we have none of these conversations.
We are those three plays away from being 4-2 instead of 1-6. That's how close this team is. And in addition, we've had many other opportunities as well. Not just those three plays. It always cooks down to execution. This is a young team. They need to learn to play and grow with each other.
It'll be a shame to see it all torn down and "rebuilt" once again. And just as shameful to lay all the blame on a young head coach who even though he makes his own share of blunders is not nearly as solely responsible as some trumpet on here.
This team isn't that close - it was that close. The only continuity between what you see this season and what you see next season will be names.
Everything being built this season will be laid to waste this off-season. All of the learning the rookies and 2nd year players have done will have to be re-learned in a new system. This season of re-building will be followed by a season re-building.... provided that next season isn't yet another complete tear-down.
buzz-killer.......
well, it still comes down to how the players respond. If they throw in the towel, its going to be a new coach. IF they keep playing hard and can stay in these games and actually pick up some of them along the way- maybe Pat keeps his job.
It is disappointing to hear that Pat would make the same 4th down decision if the same opportunity presented itself.... He's got to own up to mistakes, that is one thing that is going to get himself in trouble. Honestly, his play calling has been more imaginative- which i think is related to having better talent.
Attitude reflects leadership.
Pat threw in the towel last week. I expect the palyers to follow suit.
Then Pat compounded the problem by standing by his decision.
Weeden has a lot to prove as a 29 year old rookie. I expect he will give maximum effort the rest of the way. I expect most of the D to fully quit.
Quote:
Fort hangs onto that Vic pass in the endzone at the end of that game, Little catches that pass in the endzone vs Baltimore and Gordon makes that catch in the endzone yesterday and we have none of these conversations.
I'm not sure all of that's true. The Fort one is the only one that I think assured us of victory... the Little play in the endzone was only to tie the game correct? and the drop by Gordon would have given us a 3 point lead but with almost 7 minutes still on the clock... neither of those guarantee us a win.
Weedon commented on this play in the post-game radio show. He said, I think, that they had a play called, which might have been to draw them offsides. He clearly said that the timeout was because the play clock was running down. He did NOT seem happy with the ultimate play call. I'm guessing, but I think the plan was to go for the offsides, call time-out, and then punt. Ran out of clock.
We have been stuffed on short yardage several times this year, and earlier in this game. A better punt could have gotten us excellent field position. The defense was playing very well at this stage of the game.
I think I would've made the same call on fourth down.
Going long on second and 1 would have been brilliant if it had worked. 3rd and 1 I would have tried to get the first.
Quote:
I'm guessing, but I think the plan was to go for the offsides, call time-out, and then punt. Ran out of clock.
I made a lengthy post in a different thread in which I said that I don't think Pat can handle the job of being the HC and calling the plays... I think this is a result of him trying to do it all.
If I'm the HC and I decide to go long on 3rd and 1 in that situation, I already have the "draw them off-sides" called, in fact I do it with no huddle.. get the team reset as quickly as possible, keep the defense a little disorganized and confused then hard count them if that is what you want to do. But again, none of it was planned.
Quote:
If I'm the HC and I decide to go long on 3rd and 1 in that situation, I already have the "draw them off-sides" called, in fact I do it with no huddle.. get the team reset as quickly as possible, keep the defense a little disorganized and confused then hard count them if that is what you want to do. But again, none of it was planned.
Plus, based on where you are on the field, if the hard count doesn't work, take the penalty for delay of game and punt. At the very least you don't waste a timeout there.
Statistically, there are proven facts that punting in that situation will lower your chance to win the game.
So no, it's not the right call. When you have a taller QB and a pro bowl center, you sneak the ball.
Exactly. that 5 yards was meaningless UNLESS you called it without having made the decision of whether you were going for it or not.
heck, even if I was on my own 30, I would still rather keep a timeout and sacrifice 5 yards of field position in that situation.
Quote:
We make an inordinate number of mistakes. This has to change, and the coaching staff has to change it. This is their biggest weakness.
Who could not agree with that?
Quote:
Our special teams are horrible, mainly because we make so damn many mistakes on teams.
But I think this is what you persevere through with such a young team. Remember years ago we used to have so many of Northcutt's long returns called back by penalty? Then we enjoyed a few years with Cribbs with a minimum of those calls. Now, with so many rookies on Special Teams we're getting called an inordinate amount of times for these same bone-headed penalties that take away the good field position Cribbs provides.
It's a young team. Yes, it's the coaches responsibility to coach this out of them. But you can't coach experience. That comes from playing. It will get better regardless who the coach is as these young guys gain the experience.
Quote:
We have been unable to run the ball with any consistency at all, and this is despite having excellent talent at RB.
This is coaching. Primarily the decision to feature the run game or not. We had a golden opportunity vs. the Colts to run against their limited DL and we didn't do it. Shurmur abandoned the run inexplicably. We had two series in a row where we went pass, pass, pass, punt. I seriously believe Hardesty and Obi could have been successful on the ground. It was a coaching mistake to not take advantage of a defense who were ripe to be run over.
I don't know if that was a game plan mistake or a game day mistake, but it was a mistake nonetheless.
Quote:
How many times have we jumped offsides on a 4th and short where it was obvious that the ball was never going to be snapped? It happened yesterday. I think that it's happened 3 or 4 times so far this year. That's horrible. It's coaching.
I don't think it is coaching at all. The players, even the rookies who are mainly responsible for these bone-headed mistakes, know better. We have DQ and others telling them to hold their water while the count is being called by the QB. Still, they jump!? It's a young team. And just like the dumb mistakes being made on kick returns these types of penalties are going to happen and will only lessen as they gain experience.
I could make a long list of what I think have been coaching mistakes. And they do attribute to the play on the field. But bone-headed mistakes, lack of execution and lack of experience are the main culprits in our being close but falling short.
It'll all work out no matter who the head coach is. But as I've said, I'd hate to see this thing blown-up before it even gets a chance.
In all reality this is Shurmur's first year as a Head Coach with a team who has had an offseason. And it is rife with rookies being depended upon to make the mistake-free, big plays on all three phases of the game.
If I had my druthers I would want Shurmur to give up play calling and focus on coaching up these young players and setting a high bar for discipline. Let Chilly call the plays exclusively.
This is not because I think Shurmur cannot call plays. It is because I don't think he can prepare for play calling AND prepare this young team in the way they need prepared. What they need is an elevated amount of "coaching-up" to offset their lack of experience.
Later, a couple of years from now, if Chilly gets an opportunity to be a Head Coach elsewhere Shurmur can re-assume play-calling with a much more disciplined, experienced team who will no longer need the special attention that they do now.
But alas, it's all for naught. I fully expect Shurmur to be gone and if we do not bring in another WCO Head Coach so will most of the coaching staff. If we change to a 3/4 the rest of the staff will be gone.
So our young guys, the ones who are left, who've worked so hard to get the schemes up to this point, can shift gears and learn another scheme.
It's the same old story with our Browns. No one ever gets the opportunity to finish to finish what they started. Look it up... any Browns coach who was given his 5 years had us in the playoffs. (Marty and Bill). Davis made it in under five. He's the only one unless you go all the way back to Bud Carson who inherited Marty's team and Blanton Collier who inherited Paul Brown's team.
If you haven't guessed, I really like this team. This is the highest level of speed and talent I've seen since our return. And although many of the are rookies and second year guys the upside is through the roof.
Their biggest problem is as you have said, an inordinate number of mistakes. With players this young it is not going to be miraculously cured by any coach. Playing time combined with special attention to disciplined play will take care of it so long as they don't have to pull up stakes and start over which only compounds the problems.
I hate that I see another rebuild so soon.
Quote:
... neither of those guarantee us a win.
You are right sir.
But I like our chances in both situations. We lost the Rats game by 7 points (Little's drop) and the Colts game by 4 (Gordon's drop). No one can call either game either way.
But even though I'm not a betting man, with a kicker who is money at 50 yards I'm betting we win both. We had opportunities for those kicks very late in both games.
Those statistics do not take into account our poor short-yardage performance.
Totally forgot about taking the penalty, yeah, if that was the plan they just shoulda taken the penalty. That MAY have been Weedon's call.
I'm not sold on Shurmur, but a lot of what we are seeing is rookie mistakes. IMO the key is if these get better over the rest of the season.
The decision to play TR when he must have obviously not been 100% bothers me more than the play-calling. Keeping Marecic in the game is just bizarre.
Speaking of bizarre, WTF was that timeout at the half with 1 second left? Nice to see someone else's coach do something really strange. But, they won and we didn't.
Coupla catches here and there and we are all singing a different tune, probably off-key cause we haven't really sung it in a while.
Quote:
Fort hangs onto that Vic pass in the endzone at the end of that game, Little catches that pass in the endzone vs Baltimore and Gordon makes that catch in the endzone yesterday and we have none of these conversations.
This is only true if you choose to ignore all the collective coaching blunders, the total lack of preparedness and the complete ineptitude in the play calling that put us in a position to need three big plays to have a chance at winning those games in the first place. It boils down to the lack total game preparedness, game planning in general and game day coaching, not simply the lack of execution of those three plays.
Quote:
All of the learning the rookies and 2nd year players have done will have to be re-learned in a new system.
Not if your guy Gruden is hired.
Quote:
Quote:
All of the learning the rookies and 2nd year players have done will have to be re-learned in a new system.
Not if your guy Gruden is hired.
And that's not really true. A lot of the learning that is done, especially in the rookie year, is about the speed of the game, the way the NFL works, the way to prepare both mentally and physically... changing schemes isn't going to unlearn that. Yes they will have to learn new terminology and rework on timing of different routes, etc to some degree but the original adaptation to the NFL is done, and that's big.
Quote:
Quote:
... neither of those guarantee us a win.
You are right sir.
But I like our chances in both situations. We lost the Rats game by 7 points (Little's drop) and the Colts game by 4 (Gordon's drop). No one can call either game either way.
But even though I'm not a betting man, with a kicker who is money at 50 yards I'm betting we win both. We had opportunities for those kicks very late in both games.
That's just the nature of the NFL. I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games and most/all of those could have been won by the other team if you could just take back or change one play. Make 3 tiny changes to Patriots games and they are 7-0. Ditto for the Eagles and they are 0-6
The NFL is set up for parity. That's why when a team loses 17 out of 20 games and several of those losses were directly influenced by coaching decisions/blunders, the coach has to go. We will be at a disadvantage in every game we play because our coach doesn't understand game situations. Think about that for a minute.
The flip side of that would be Belichick and the Patriots, who aggressively pursue every edge they can and I think their track record speaks for itself.
Quote:
It boils down to the lack total game preparedness, game planning in general and game day coaching, not simply the lack of execution of those three plays.
I don't choose to ignore those things. But I do question that there is a "lack of total game preparedness" and game planning in general. I'll give you lack of game day coaching although I don't see any of these as severely lacking so much as you apparently do as do some others.
As has been discussed on here before, many want the fix to be easy and the easiest fix is to fix the blame on one thing/person and make that responsible for falling short.
I don't think it's as simple as just the Head Coach nor do I think it's a combination of Shurmur and the staff, (of whom has vast, successful experience in the very same coaching qualities as they are being accused of lacking). This is not an entire coaching staff of "first-timers" as we've had here before.
What makes them seem unprepared is their youthful mistakes because there are so many of them. What looks like a lack of game planning is a lack of execution. What looks like a lack of game day coaching is a lack of game day coaching, but even that is not so severe as it is being portrayed.
Many things are exaggerated when the team is losing. The thing that is exaggerated the most is the easy fix, (i.e. fire the coach).
Good God, the man has 7 games as a Head Coach with a team who has had an offseason and a boatload of rookies expected to overachieve at this point of their careers. Even at that, I believe he should give up play-calling and focus on "coaching up" the young guys in their discipline.
Quote:
That's just the nature of the NFL. I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games
Well, out of 104 NFL games this year, 58 were decided by 7 or fewer points.. that's more than half. (31 of those 58 were actually decided by 3 or less)
What's funny is that you would expect there to be fewer as the margin of victory grew, but that's not the case... In the 8-14 range 14 games were decided.. in the 15-21 range 16 games were decided and in the over 21 range, 16 games were decided.... so if you don't keep it within a touchdown, you have just as good a chance of getting blown out. 
4 of our 6 losses were in the 7 or less category, the other 2 were in the 8 to 14 range.. our win was also in the 8-14 range... so we don't get blown out.
Quote:
I do question that there is a "lack of total game preparedness" and game planning in general.
I know it looks like piling on, and it seems easy at this juncture. I thought we had turned a corner with the win against the Bengals, and wanted to see success through the end of the season to possibly garner another year without change. However, it's very clear there has been and continues to be extreme shortcomings on game day preparations and half time adjustment.
Regardless of his time with the team, he's had plenty of time, (a week between games,) to get ready for the next team, but his record of failure on the first and second drives, when he's supposed to have his first 10-15 plays scripted, and his equally abysmal 3rd quarter record, when he's supposed to have made half time adjustment clearly point to the fact that he is not prepared well enough to score on those early 1st & 3rd quarter drives. He may in fact work hard preparing, but shows up completely unprepared to win regardless.
There may be issues with execution, we see that constantly, the mistakes & penalties do hurt us. But it is up to the coach to make sure those are kept to a minimum, and it's also up to the coach to put young players in a position to maximize their success. That's not happening. It's as simple as not calling a deep sideline route on third down with a rookie QB & WR when you only need six yards. You have a veteran TE, you go to him across the middle where he can open himself to the QB, present a target and make the catch. That's fundamental and just one minor example. Throwing when you should be running. An inability to manage the clock with 23 years of coaching experience! In total, it's simply ridiculous.
Do I want to go through a new coaching change? Hell no. Do I want Shurmur here next year? Absolutely not. The sad fact is, he should have never been hired to begin with. He's in over his head, and I think he's checked out. I know he battled. But it wasn't good enough.
Quote:
We will be at a disadvantage in every game we play because our coach doesn't understand game situations. Think about that for a minute.
Second guessing a coaching decision is the easiest thing in the world to do when the decision doesn't work out. Think about that for a minute.
Shurmur got blasted to no end for taking TR out of a 3rd and 1 play choosing instead to pass and it failed. Everybody knew that's a coaching mistake. Then, in a later game, he has TR run on 3rd and 1 and it fails. Now what?!
Bad decision doesn't work/good decision doesn't work, which one is responsible for losing the game, the good decision in that game or the bad decision in the other one?
I don't hold the opinion that Shurmur doesn't make bad coaching decisions at times. It irks the hell outta me. Just that his decisions are not what causes us to fall short in all these losses. Of course they don't always put us in the best position to succeed which is his job. But neither does throwing pick-sixes and dropping balls, which doesn't put us in the best position to win games either which is their jobs.
Wins are team wins and loses are team loses. Fort didn't lose that game when he failed to make the interception in the Eagles game. Neither did Little or Gordon lose those games by failing to make those sure TD catches. There were plenty of other opportunities throughout the game to make successful plays and/or to not make mistakes that could have resulted in a very different outcome.
To attempt to squarely place blame on any one aspect be it a player, a coach, a play call, a mistake or any other one aspect is simplifying it way too much. The team has to develop and play like a team and with the number of rookies and second-year guys we have on this team to expect them, coaching included, to run like a well-oiled machine is expecting too much.
Quote:
I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games and most/all of those could have been won by the other team if you could just take back or change one play. Make 3 tiny changes to Patriots games and they are 7-0. Ditto for the Eagles and they are 0-6
True that. But with our young team, who makes a ton of mistakes, is still a part of that parity mistakes included. Give these same players and staff another lousy year of experience to cut back on the shear number of mistakes and we should, according to the rules of parity, be able to play and keep up with the big boys consistantly.
Quote:
It's as simple as not calling a deep sideline route on third down with a rookie QB & WR when you only need six yards. You have a veteran TE, you go to him across the middle where he can open himself to the QB, present a target and make the catch. That's fundamental and just one minor example. Throwing when you should be running. An inability to manage the clock with 23 years of coaching experience! In total, it's simply ridiculous.
In your first example of the deep sideline route, there are other options in that play. The QB is to take that if it's there and if not he's to check down to maybe that TE or another, shorter route that is open. Guys are getting open. Some of those plays that look like a bad play call is a rookie QB learning that in the pros he can't make some of those passes that he so easily made last year in college. That's where his earlier pick-sixes came from. The interceptions in the Eagles game were the most glaring example of that. Weeden is getting much better so he seems to be learning from his mistakes, but I think he still, too often, is gun slinging by going for the big play because he trusts his arm.
"Throwing when you should be running" I'll give you that but not so much as an in game play call but as in an abandonment of the running game as we saw against the Colts. Pass, pass, pass, punt in two series in a row had me pulling my hair out when we were facing a team with a makeshift DL who were ripe for the taking with Hardesty and Obi.
The clock thing should never happen but all coaches make suspect clock management mistakes. Maybe Shurmur makes a greater percentage of them, I don't really know as I don't see that many games. But every week you see it on ESPN of these sorts of gaffs. How it happens I don't know. Maybe there's too much going on at a specific moment that overwhelms them. But it's not just Shurmur.
Quote:
... so we don't get blown out.
That is one reason, even considering the youth of this team and the inordinate number of mistakes they are making, that we still don't get blown out is so encouraging to me.
Beyond that, if we were a veteran team making these mistakes I'd be highly discouraged and wouldn't see a fix for it other than a coaching change. But since our team is so dang young I know it's only their youth and inexperience contributing to all the mistakes and that will primarily take care of itself with playing time and some well-aimed coaching up.
Do you advocate sticking with Shurmur and the current coaching staff? If so, what is it about him that instills your confidence?
Quote:
Quote:
We will be at a disadvantage in every game we play because our coach doesn't understand game situations. Think about that for a minute.
Second guessing a coaching decision is the easiest thing in the world to do when the decision doesn't work out. Think about that for a minute.
nah.. that is the "if it works it was a good call, if it doesn't work it was a bad call" archaic type thinking that I can't stand. If our coach would have went for it and got stuffed I absolutely 100% would have defended it as the right decision.
Coaching decisions can and often should be judged without considering the actual result. It was a boneheaded/scared/bizarre decision that considerably lowered the team's probability to win, regardless of what happened after. Simple as that. Come on..... you know this.
Quote:
Shurmur got blasted to no end for taking TR out of a 3rd and 1 play choosing instead to pass and it failed. Everybody knew that's a coaching mistake. Then, in a later game, he has TR run on 3rd and 1 and it fails. Now what?!
Bad decision doesn't work/good decision doesn't work, which one is responsible for losing the game, the good decision in that game or the bad decision in the other one?
I don't hold the opinion that Shurmur doesn't make bad coaching decisions at times. It irks the hell outta me. Just that his decisions are not what causes us to fall short in all these losses. Of course they don't always put us in the best position to succeed which is his job. But neither does throwing pick-sixes and dropping balls, which doesn't put us in the best position to win games either which is their jobs.
Wins are team wins and loses are team loses. Fort didn't lose that game when he failed to make the interception in the Eagles game. Neither did Little or Gordon lose those games by failing to make those sure TD catches. There were plenty of other opportunities throughout the game to make successful plays and/or to not make mistakes that could have resulted in a very different outcome.
To attempt to squarely place blame on any one aspect be it a player, a coach, a play call, a mistake or any other one aspect is simplifying it way too much. The team has to develop and play like a team and with the number of rookies and second-year guys we have on this team to expect them, coaching included, to run like a well-oiled machine is expecting too much.
I completely agree with you. The team is heading in the right direction but there's plenty of blame to go around, and a lot of it isn't the head coach's fault. I get it
Honestly though he seems like a good enough guy but as a head coach he is woefully underqualified, doesn't have many particularly strong attributes (QB development has been good though, from now back through his time with STL/PHI), but has plenty of weaknesses and makes so many consistently bad decisions that he would be easy to hire someone better.
Quote:
I don't have the #s on hand but a big chunk of NFL games are 1 score games and most/all of those could have been won by the other team if you could just take back or change one play. Make 3 tiny changes to Patriots games and they are 7-0. Ditto for the Eagles and they are 0-6
Quote:
True that. But with our young team, who makes a ton of mistakes, is still a part of that parity mistakes included. Give these same players and staff another lousy year of experience to cut back on the shear number of mistakes and we should, according to the rules of parity, be able to play and keep up with the big boys consistantly.
This Browns team has the potential to be very good very soon. It's crazy how much young talent has been added in recent years... with high draft picks every round every year, the haul from the Julio trade, and borrowing the 2nd rounder from next year. It's pretty crazy actually.
Quote:
This Browns team has the potential to be very good very soon. It's crazy how much young talent has been added in recent years... with high draft picks every round every year, the haul from the Julio trade, and borrowing the 2nd rounder from next year. It's pretty crazy actually.
Just to touch on this a little more, I really don't think a coaching change is as disruptive as it's made out to be, as long as it's not also a philosophy change. Plenty of coaches come in and have success in year 1 or year 2.
e.g. Belichick, Rex Ryan, both Harbaughs, Tomlin, John Fox, Mike Smith, Sean Payton, Jeff Fisher, and others have all had varying degrees of success soon after taking over a team. I just hope we stick with the same general philosophies, especially style of defense (fast/athletic) which I think is perfect for the modern, pass happy NFL.
I've put some thought into this, and a few things I've read today (on here, on other sites) have given me a hairbrained idea. If Shurmer loses both before the bye, can him now.
Either our DC or OC are certainly qualified to run a team for the remainder of the year. However, if Banner and Haslem are ok with it, offer the position to Holmgren for the remainder of the year. He said a lot today (
link ) that makes me think he might be open to it (the question being, would he really be open to it and accept that "demotion"?)
I don't think there'd be much argument that he's a good coach. He knows the players, he knows the system...at best he sparks the team to play better and is our coach moving forward...and at worst he does no better than what we have now and we start over next year anyway.
Crazy? Yes. Feasible? Not sure, but if Banner, Haslem, and Holmgren were all ok with it, I'd much prefer it to what we have as a head coach today.
Flame away...
Quote:
would he really be open to it and accept that "demotion"?
Do you mean would he be open to working his ass off for 80 hours a week after sitting on his ass in cushy chair making eight million a year doing nothing?
Um... let me think about it.
Quote:
Do you advocate sticking with Shurmur and the current coaching staff? If so, what is it about him that instills your confidence?
I can more easily tell you what I don't want and that is to replace Shurmur and the current coaching staff.
I think this is one of the best, most experienced coaching staffs, as a whole, that we're likely to put together for a long time. They are all of the same philosophy and on the same page, both sides of the ball, as this team is ever going to assemble.
Gone are the staffs full of first-timers, first time GM, first time HC, first time OC, first time DC. God we've lived through that and died by it.
I think all this group needs, Heckert included, is to be given the time to finish what they started. Many on here, even the strong Shurmur haters, like this team and the direction they're headed as well as seeing great potential and seeing that potential being realized sooner rather than later.
Let's not forget, Shurmur has played a major part in that. I think that gets overlooked.
To better answer your question more to your satisfaction, I'd be willing to change out Shurmur if it didn't mean the wholesale changing out of the rest of the staff.
Has that ever happened before? I don't know.
What I do know is that this entire group, Holmgren included, has this team at this juncture and it ain't bad at all. If anyone thinks the Head Coach is the one who is causing us to fall short every time and wants him gone then all the other coaches, assistants and even the GM will very likely be gone as well. (You know, the coaches, assistants and the GM who've brought this team to this juncture).
To keep all this together I'd be willing to let Shurmur learn on the job. I'd like him to give up play-calling duties and focus more on team discipline and whatever else he's contributed that has this team at the level they are. And they are at a high level considering their youth.
I love the plan, (build through the draft/ignore FA until a solid core is developed). The plan seems to be working to this point. I'd hate to see it fall away now just because we've lost a lot of games during the rebuild and development while blaming it all on the Head Coach.
I don't even know if I answered your question but I tried.
dub'
I think you make excellent points. I have a hard time seeing past my dislike of Shurmer, but I think your post is spot on.
My only comment is that, Shurmer got the chance to give up playcalling when they hired Chilly. They hired an extremely experienced OC, and he's still calling plays. I think that ship has sailed.
Your points about the staff are spot on. I think, for the most part, we have an excellent staff. First and foremost, Heckert has done a phenomenal job. I think, overall, Jauron has done a good job (inconsistent, though).
Quote:
dub'
I think you make excellent points. I have a hard time seeing past my dislike of Shurmer, but I think your post is spot on.
My only comment is that, Shurmer got the chance to give up playcalling when they hired Chilly. They hired an extremely experienced OC, and he's still calling plays. I think that ship has sailed.
So, you throw the baby out with the bath water rather than just trying to learn from a mistake and correct what is already in place?
Ok.
I edited my post after you responded.
Quote:
He's in over his head, and I think he's checked out.
He's not checked out. He just doesn't know what to do. He is actually trying, he is just incompetent.
Quote:
Do you advocate sticking with Shurmur and the current coaching staff? If so, what is it about him that instills your confidence?
I would not be all that upset if we gave the whole staff one more year.. I would like to see Pat give up the playcalling though...
The question could be turned around though.. because when people advocating getting rid of Shurmur, they are comparing him to an unknown... and people have this unknown built up to be something better than Shurmur, which may or may not happen. It's like those election polls, "Would you vote for Obama or an unknown Republican?" Well if I get to fabricate a nice conservative Republican in my mind with all of the traits I want him to have then of course I would vote for that guy....
So people need to stop thinking about Gruden or Cowher or whoever their coach of choice is and start thinking that it might be the DC from the 49ers or the OC from the Giants or somebody they have never heard of who has never been a HC before... because that is far more likely... So you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago.. Is it possible that the guy turns into Jim Harbaugh and we instantly become an 11 win team? Yea, I guess it's possible but it's far more likely that we watch the new guy go through a couple years of growing pains just like Shurmur has.... so we can get to where we are now....
Quote:
I don't even know if I answered your question but I tried.
Fair and thorough. In a sense, I agree with you. I don't want to start over. I appreciate, for the most part, the job the coaching staff has done. I see us moving in the right direction. I think we are several pieces away from having a very good team. Shurmur would have to relinquish play calling duties to continue as HC. But honestly, I don't see that happening. If he gets fired, the whole coaching staff goes. I can only hope the next staff can do a better job of winning. The one thing they will have going for them that none of the other regimes had is a legitimate QB and a core roster of young talented players. Maybe that's the missing piece now, a solid coaching staff that can win. If Shurmur starts winning, maybe he stays. I just don't know that he can do that. He should have won the Colts game. If there was ever a game that was certainly winnable, but was lost primarily by coaching, this was it. We'll know soon enough where we stand.
Quote:
you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago.
No, the new guys gets an owner who cares, a CEO who knows his job, a talented QB, a roster with decent talent, a draft with high picks including a FA period to round out a talented roster, and an entire off season to prepare. Big difference.
Quote:
I would not be all that upset if we gave the whole staff one more year.. I would like to see Pat give up the playcalling though...
we tried that once with Mangini. either Haslam/Banner are married to this FO & Staff or they should replace them. I don't think there is any gray area on this one. Once they make their decision, their first BIG decision as controlling interests of the Browns is in the books.
Right.
I would say Holmgren's biggest failure was letting Mangini stay. He let what he thought was right (letting Mangini stay because he won four straight games) get in the way of the actual right decision.
If Haslam/Banner make the determination that Heckert and Shurmur are the long term answer at general manager and head coach, then they should stay. If they aren't the long term answer, they need to go.
Banner should have a pretty good understanding on how Heckert and Shurmur operate from his prior experiences with them and the system they learned from.
All signs point to Haslam and Banners' minds already made up.
Quote:
Right.
I would say Holmgren's biggest failure was letting Mangini stay. He let what he thought was right (letting Mangini stay because he won four straight games) get in the way of the actual right decision.
If Haslam/Banner make the determination that Heckert and Shurmur are the long term answer at general manager and head coach, then they should stay. If they aren't the long term answer, they need to go.
Banner should have a pretty good understanding on how Heckert and Shurmur operate from his prior experiences with them and the system they learned from.
All signs point to Haslam and Banners' minds already made up.
I agree with you pretty much except for the part where u said Holmgren should have let Gini go immediately... I Holmgren did it the right way. Who's to say that after firing Gini he goes to head coach another team and they turn out to win a Super Bowl.. Then he would have looked like an idiot for letting him go w/out seeing for himself what type of coach he was.
Quote:
Quote:
you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago.
No, the new guys gets an owner who cares, a CEO who knows his job, a talented QB, a roster with decent talent, a draft with high picks including a FA period to round out a talented roster, and an entire off season to prepare. Big difference.
And none of that guarantees that he is going to be able to reduce penalties, make the right play calls, use his timeouts properly or his challenges.. none of it.
Basically he has all of the same stuff going into next season that Shurmur has... only probably 2 less years of experience.
We have the benefit of hindsight. It wasn't the right move.
I'm mostly using that (Holmgren keeping Mangini) as a reason why the new ownership shouldn't hold on to Shurmur (if it is determined he isn't the long term solution).
We have seen that you should get the guys you want in place as quickly as possible. If you keep guys around for the wrong reasons it only results in a wasted year.
Yea.. at least Haslam came in midseason, and will get a feel for him. I doubt he is retained though..
I just don't know who would turn this team around coaching wise. From a roster standpoint, we are stocking up on talent (well kinda), so hopefully it will be easier for the next guy.
Quote:
Quote:
would he really be open to it and accept that "demotion"?
Do you mean would he be open to working his ass off for 80 hours a week after sitting on his ass in cushy chair making eight million a year doing nothing?
Um... let me think about it.
Since you obviously didn't read the article, let me help you.
Quote:
Asked if he has one more coaching stint in him, Holmgren, 64, said, "I don't know. I do miss the coaching part.''
Quote:
Holmgren also said he'd like to stick around here for the rest of the season if it feels right with new owner Jimmy Haslam and CEO Joe Banner in the building.
"We'll take it one day at a time and see how it goes,'' he said. "I'll focus on the football side now (and not the business side). I want to feel like I'm contributing. I think I can help a little.''
Quote:
"I want to feel like I'm contributing. My emphasis will be on the football side. I don't have to do the business side of it anymore. If I could help one player or one coach be a little better and I feel like I'm contributing, that could happen."
He's open to coaching, and will be working on the football side of things, not the business side of things the rest of the season. So, if the HC position were to become available, why not do it in a low pressure situation as an interim (with the potential to be extended)? As well, if he's going to go back to coaching, he knows the staff, the players, and both offensive and defensive systems we have in place. If he were to go to Dallas, Philly, Carolina, KC, etc... he'd have to start all over - higher pressure.
Quote:
And none of that guarantees that he is going to be able to reduce penalties, make the right play calls, use his timeouts properly or his challenges.. none of it.
Aren't these things that can determined through the interview process? Give the interviewee certain game situations and ask him what he would do in those situations. Ask what he would do on 4th and 1 down 4 points with 6 minutes in the 4th quarter, ask when the right time to use a timeout is, etc.
I feel like Shurmur thinks he is right, he keeps making the wrong decisions over and over again. That is a huge problem. People make the excuse that "we have the benefit of seeing the result." But so does Shurmur and he does the wrong thing all the time.
Quote:
Since you obviously didn't read the article, let me help you.
Thanks, but I saw the presser, did you? I realize what you're referring to. You obviously still think you can believe what comes out of his mouth. Did you catch the part about relaxing on his deck in California when he got the news about Lerner selling the team? Or the part about spending some time on the beach, maybe Hawaii sipping umbrella drinks? Did you notice that he profusely thanked Lerner for his time here, wished he could have given him a winning product, but never once mentioned the fans. Or how about the fact that the one thing he might have been able to pull off here was coaching, yet he he never seriously entertained that notion, actually doing something that might have gotten the team going in the right direction. Now we're supposed to believe that he misses coaching? If you're waiting for him to start coaching again, don't hold your breath.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago.
No, the new guys gets an owner who cares, a CEO who knows his job, a talented QB, a roster with decent talent, a draft with high picks including a FA period to round out a talented roster, and an entire off season to prepare. Big difference.
And none of that guarantees that he is going to be able to reduce penalties, make the right play calls, use his timeouts properly or his challenges.. none of it.
Basically he has all of the same stuff going into next season that Shurmur has... only probably 2 less years of experience.
And probably sound decision making ability and the support of the owner & CEO.
I did not see his presser, I read a few articles that all said pretty much the same thing. I guess that the reporters pulled different information than you're mentioning.
Quote:
So you get a guy who is right where Shurmur was 2 years ago..
I don't think it's that simple.
Shurmur is as clueless a HC as I've ever seen ... and that's saying something considering I lived through Crennel.
I have yet to see one single thing to make me think 'Hmm, maybe this guy could turn out alright'. Not one.
Mangini, at times, as bad as he was, gave me that thought. So did Crennel. And Butch. And Palmer.
Now, I never thought they were great coaches. But they at least gave me something at some time to say 'Maybe they have something going here', even if it was false hope.
If after 23 games, you haven't given the simplest shred of hope, I don't think it's coming.
Quote:
Quote:
Right.
I would say Holmgren's biggest failure was letting Mangini stay. He let what he thought was right (letting Mangini stay because he won four straight games) get in the way of the actual right decision.
If Haslam/Banner make the determination that Heckert and Shurmur are the long term answer at general manager and head coach, then they should stay. If they aren't the long term answer, they need to go.
Banner should have a pretty good understanding on how Heckert and Shurmur operate from his prior experiences with them and the system they learned from.
All signs point to Haslam and Banners' minds already made up.
I agree with you pretty much except for the part where u said Holmgren should have let Gini go immediately... I Holmgren did it the right way. Who's to say that after firing Gini he goes to head coach another team and they turn out to win a Super Bowl.. Then he would have looked like an idiot for letting him go w/out seeing for himself what type of coach he was.
yes, he'd get run in the press for being an idiot, but truly the entire organization was never going to be on the same page with Mangini in place. we know that for sure now, but he could have explained it then too.
Quote:
While the timeout then punt was unprofessional, if he decided that he shouldn't go for it, then why compound your mistake by going for it just because you called timeout? Whether or not going for it was the right thing to do is one thing, and it made me irritated as heck, too, but if he decided that going for it wasn't the right thing to do, it's better that he punted it away than going for it just to save face.
Are you aware that before the timout was called because the playclock was running down, they had Oneil Cousins on the field announced as an eligible receiver ...which would indicate they planned to try to run for the first down, and would indicate that the offense, not the punting unit, was in the huddle/lineup.
Quote:
Quote:
Since you obviously didn't read the article, let me help you.
Thanks, but I saw the presser, did you? I realize what you're referring to. You obviously still think you can believe what comes out of his mouth. Did you catch the part about relaxing on his deck in California when he got the news about Lerner selling the team? Or the part about spending some time on the beach, maybe Hawaii sipping umbrella drinks? Did you notice that he profusely thanked Lerner for his time here, wished he could have given him a winning product, but never once mentioned the fans. Or how about the fact that the one thing he might have been able to pull off here was coaching, yet he he never seriously entertained that notion, actually doing something that might have gotten the team going in the right direction. Now we're supposed to believe that he misses coaching? If you're waiting for him to start coaching again, don't hold your breath.
I have not heard any of it nore have I read any of it but this crazyness of him coaching I dont understand at all. The man came here to build a winner. He may or may not have been successful given more time. His time ran out and he is going to help out if Haslam and Banner want him to.
He doesnt have a job anymore so what else can he do or say? Im sure he missed coaching he did it his whole life Alcohalics miss drinking too but that doesnt mean they will go back just because they say they miss it.
I dont get the fan comment? Whats he supposed to say I wanted to thank the fans.
That would sound hollow when alot of fans bashed him at every turn and cant see a big picture if its blocking their front door?
Now alot of us saw it but even some here never saw it until forced to with the owner change. Those are now saying well things were working but......place excuse on how mike failed here.
RANT ON- I dont give a crap if the people in charge never mention the fans until they are holding the SB trophy. Haslam is a fan first guy for sure, but so was Lerner he held conferences with fans to get their ideas and always wanted to please/appease(sp?) the fans. I say muck that, Let the fans figure it out once your done building a winner. I dont need an exec tellimg me im a good and loyal fan.
These guys are doing it for the money (1st and formost, from the top down), the pride, the glory and the press that comes with it. The fans are the groupies that give some of them a reason to hold their heads even higher then they should.Fans are like drunk people in bars, I need attention, I need to be noticed - Rant off
Anyway, back on topic I like alot of you wish Shurmur would give up playcalling. I dont see it happening and I dont see him lasting past this year.
Quote:
We have the benefit of hindsight. It wasn't the right move.
I'm mostly using that (Holmgren keeping Mangini) as a reason why the new ownership shouldn't hold on to Shurmur (if it is determined he isn't the long term solution).
We have seen that you should get the guys you want in place as quickly as possible. If you keep guys around for the wrong reasons it only results in a wasted year.
Sure, and I agree 100% on keeping Manginin being Holmgren's biggest mistake, because he decided as a coach instead of a president with a LONG TERM plan, we now would be in year 3, not 2 of the REAL re-build...and here's the kicker. Mangini, all personal bias aside...no matter how much you liked or disliked him, just wasn't a FIT...he ran the 3-4 with heavy guys, Holmgren and Heckert come from the 4-3 with speed over size. Even on Offense Mangini preferred grunt OL with run 1st mentality...the WCO otoh is, again, a 180 on that
Now you use this analogy for the current regime and I think it's not accurate...if you dont believe in their COMPETENCE...yes, then fire them...but philosophically they're from the same side....hell, Banner even SAID so in his presser (building through the draft, keeping your own players etc)..that's EXACTLY what Heckert's been doing and Shurmur and staff have done a great job developing those players...I hate Shurmur's gameday management...from play calling in critical situations and philosophy as a whole (too pass happy, although I understand with a QB like Weeden it makes more sense to pass 3 times with 10yds to go then have one shot on 3rd and short, but still he needs more patience with the run)....
that all said, if I was presented with the choice of keeping the entire staff and Heckert OR blowing all things up...I think short and mid term (and I "believe" even long term, mostly because of Heckert) staying Pat (pun intended) is the right thing to do
In a vacuum I want Shurmur fired and replaced but that's not how a president has to think and make decisions..problem is, I don't think neither Haslam nor Banner have the competence to make this kind of decision and they strike me as too EGO-heavy to be as nice as Holmgren was with Mangini....man we fans have to endure some crappy timing aren't we? Back then we needed those 2 hee-haws, now we need a more level-headed decision maker as the situations demanded for those calls...back to my 1st point: we just never get it right here on those big decisions....who knows, maybe we "luck" into a Haslam "gut feeling" call and he keeps the guys, would cut him a lot of slack if he did
The thing is, if Shurmur and Heckert are kept, they will always be on the chopping block because they aren't Haslam's guys.
Continuity is what we need, but continuity with the wrong people is almost as bad as firing the head coach every two years.
(Like I said in my earlier post, I'm not saying Shurmur and Heckert will be fired or I want them to be fired. Just think they eventually will be. Also, I think Shurmur is good from Monday through Saturday as well, he just can't make the right decisions on Sunday.)
Quote:
[Haslam and Banner] strike me as too EGO-heavy to be as nice as Holmgren was with Mangini
I don't know about the ego thing. They haven't been around long enough for me to make that determination. But I hope they are not nice. This is Haslam's team. If he thinks the current people are not the right people, he has to get rid of them. If he is not on the same page philosophically with them, he has to get rid of them. If he does not get along with them, has to get rid of them.
We need everyone rowing in the same direction. Heckert and Shurmur may have the same team building philosophies as Haslam and Banner, but they might not get along. They might get along, but be bad at their jobs. I'd much rather them fire these guys and get some people that they want then keep around people to be nice.
Quote:
The thing is, if Shurmur and Heckert are kept, they will always be on the chopping block because they aren't Haslam's guys.
Being a new owner (at least a majority owner) does haslam have guys? he wasn't part of the Steelers when "the Chin" was there so he's not one of his guys. I think it was Mourg that said yesterday that the chances of Pagano coming back are good (I heard differently but that's another story) so maybe, since Bruce Arians is a former Steeler coordinator and they've had stuggles offensively since he's left and he's done pretty well with the Colts, he might be a Haslam guy.
But outside of him, who would be a Haslam guy? The answer is, whoever he picks becomes a Haslam guy. So with no experience in that arena, who does he really know.
But here's the thing, Haslam has experience hiring folks, but not for Head Coaching jobs. For that matter, neither does Banner.
Quote:
But here's the thing, Haslam has experience hiring folks, but not for Head Coaching jobs. For that matter, neither does Banner.
Considering that the average tenure of an NFL coach is barely 2.5 years.... not many people are good at hiring head coaches....
I have long maintained that the problem is that most guys go in looking for a "football guy".. a guy thats great with the Xs and Os.. and that is absolutely not what a HC needs to be. Hopefully Haslam understands that.
By "his guys" I meant people he hires. Not people he is familiar with in the league.
That might be a good thing for us by the way. Haslam shouldn't have a set roster guys he has to pick from (Holmgren/LaMonte).
FWIW.....
Haslam was spotted at Buckeyes practice today so perhaps the hunt has begun.
Quote:
FWIW.....
Haslam was spotted at Buckeyes practice today so perhaps the hunt has begun.
it worked for Paul Brown
Quote:
Quote:
FWIW.....
Haslam was spotted at Buckeyes practice today so perhaps the hunt has begun.
it worked for Paul Brown
You guys would all go absolutely insane with rage if Paul Brown were HC now. He was not exactly an easy man to like. Many of his players, even the ones who were his friends, hated playing for him. He was a ruthless and driven man who pushed his players for every last measure of performance. I had a friend, recently deceased, who played for him in the Navy and then with the Browns. He considered him a dear friend. And he also hated playing for him. The Cleveland press would erupt in spontaneous combustion if his kind were hired.
What everyone wants now is a super nice guy who knows football perfectly, never makes a mistake, and can transform any bum into an all-pro. Paul Brown was not such a man.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
FWIW.....
Haslam was spotted at Buckeyes practice today so perhaps the hunt has begun.
it worked for Paul Brown
You guys would all go absolutely insane with rage if Paul Brown were HC now. He was not exactly an easy man to like. Many of his players, even the ones who were his friends, hated playing for him. He was a ruthless and driven man who pushed his players for every last measure of performance. I had a friend, recently deceased, who played for him in the Navy and then with the Browns. He considered him a dear friend. And he also hated playing for him. The Cleveland press would erupt in spontaneous combustion if his kind were hired.
What everyone wants now is a super nice guy who knows football perfectly, never makes a mistake, and can transform any bum into an all-pro. Paul Brown was not such a man.
yeah well, back then they could get away with it. Now 90% of your players would probably walk out or request trades if they had to endure that treatment, nevermind the press and the fans views.
Tom Coughlin? Bill Belichik?
Quote:
Tom Coughlin? Bill Belichik?
No where near the same as Paul Brown's days of TC and practices. The NFLPA, today's players, and the overall change in society frowns upon that style these days.
Quote:
Quote:
Tom Coughlin? Bill Belichik?
No where near the same as Paul Brown's days of TC and practices. The NFLPA, today's players, and the overall change in society frowns upon that style these days.
well, if Paul Brown were in the NFL today, he would go right up to that line, probably dance over it a little bit and demand his players don't complain about it.
until he won a SB, people would whine and it'd be news, but once he did, he'd be a great coach.
Coughlin and Belichick great examples of that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tom Coughlin? Bill Belichik?
No where near the same as Paul Brown's days of TC and practices. The NFLPA, today's players, and the overall change in society frowns upon that style these days.
well, if Paul Brown were in the NFL today, he would go right up to that line, probably dance over it a little bit and demand his players don't complain about it.
and the NFLPA would get called, and then he'd get shut down, the media would crucify him, talk radio would be lambasting him, he wouldn't be given a 2nd chance, and every shot of him on TV would be one where somebody gets to conclude he's a crappy coach because they think he looks confused or clueless... and some coach in Tennesee would publicly wonder "what the heck is going on up there?".
he might. until he won a SB.
again, same thing happened to Coughlin. the NFLPA stepped in a couple times with him, people called for his job, people complained anonymously to the media.
then, he goes and wins a SB and all of a sudden everything is rosy. things start to get dicey again last year, and he wins another SB and noone is talking about how gruff he is being (no, it's he turned over a new leaf
)
Quote:
then, he goes and wins a SB and all of a sudden everything is rosy. things start to get dicey again last year, and he wins another SB and noone is talking about how gruff he is being (no, it's he turned over a new leaf )
Tom Coughlin is not the same coach he was 10-15 years ago. Yes, he's still firey and still more old school than new, but he HAS mellowed;adapted in order to better deal with today's players.. For better or worse (and I think worse), today's athlete cannot handle coaching styles like Noll, Brown, Lomardi, etc. I'd love nothing better than a guy like those I just listed, but in all honesty, I don't think they could coach that way in today's NFL.
I agree that Coughlin and Bellichick are closer to those guys than they are to being coddlers, but it's still not the same as even 20 years ago.
jc...
I will be shocked if Shurmur is retained by Banner...I think he's toast.
Who the Browns hire as HC?...that is a problem because of Banner's history of conflicts with coaching staff and players.
Those looking for a high profile replacement...I seriously doubt that a Gruden or Cowher would work under Banner.
Banner has never been in charge of the football side of a franchise. Banner is an experienced "bean counter", but a rookie when it comes to managing the football side of a franchise.
One way to solve the Banner problem would be if Haslam moves Banner back to the business side of the franchise and someone else is hired to run the football side of the franchise. If that happens, high profile prospects like Cowher or Gruden might be willing to come to Cleveland.
But IMO, Shurmur is gone at the end of the season...
One last thing...I sure hope Haslam doesn't get a crazy idea like hiring ex Tennessee Vols head coach, Phil Fulmer.
I understand Haslam's love for his Tennessee Vols...but the Browns don't need a burned out college coach who has no experience coaching in the NFL.
Quote:
Who the Browns hire as HC?...that is a problem because of Banner's history of conflicts with coaching staff and players.
Maybe.. maybe not.
Quote:
Those looking for a high profile replacement...I seriously doubt that a Gruden or Cowher would work under Banner.
Many coaching jobs have come and gone since those guys left and neither has come back.... if they don't come here, I seriously doubt it is because of Banner....
Quote:
One way to solve the Banner problem would be if Haslam moves Banner back to the business side of the franchise and someone else is hired to run the football side of the franchise. If that happens, high profile prospects like Cowher or Gruden might be willing to come to Cleveland.
It's only the "Banner problem" in the minds of some people like you... the guy hasn't even unpacked the boxes in his office yet and you are already saying it's a problem that needs to be dealt with... no wonder the Cleveland media writes the way it does, people like you are reading it. You are just laying the ground work to blame our next head coaching failure on Banner aren't you? If either of those guys decide to come back next year (Cowher, Gruden, etc) and go somewhere else, then you might have a point.. maybe. But if they stay where they are and don't come back at all.. then you can't blame that on Banner. Or if we go get a college coach or a coordinator not everybody is familiar with, I'm sure you will say that's because it's the best Banner could do. You are already planning your reasons for why he is a failure.. sad.
Pretty sure that Cowher coming here is contingent on him finding a suitable residence in Strongsville.
Quote:
Who the Browns hire as HC?...that is a problem because of Banner's history of conflicts with coaching staff and players.
What history of conflict with coaching staff are you referring to?
Quote:
Pretty sure that Cowher coming here is contingent on him finding a suitable residence in Strongsville.
If it's within walking distance of Cleats then I would be OK with it
I would assume he's talking about Reid, but I don't know if one incident comprises a history.
Quote:
I would assume he's talking about Reid, but I don't know if one incident comprises a history.
I would assume so as well since Rhodes and Reid are the only two coaches he's ever been involved with... funny how he was executive VP when Reid was hired but mac won't give him any credit for actually hiring Reid... but then after 13 years, 8 double digit win seasons, 9 playoff appearances, 3 NFC title games, 1 super bowl appearance later... all of the sudden Banner was a big problem.... I sure hope we don't have problems like that. 
Quote:
I would assume he's talking about Reid, but I don't know if one incident comprises a history.
That's exactly where I was going with it, dude.
Taking this even further, if Banner did have conflicts with the "coaching staff" (meaning one person 
) but that "coaching staff" has made mistakes with all the power they'd (he'd) received with their (his) new-found power and gets fired, was Banner really wrong?
I think if we are going to judge Banner based on what's happened in Philly, I would say it's too soon to accurately and fairly judge. Why? Because Reid wanted all the control and got it. So let's see what Reid does with it and judge whether or not the Eagles did the right thing by choosing Reid over Banner.
What's going on in Philly? How is Reid doing with absolute power?
He just fired his DC in spite of them reportedly ranking 12th in the league in defense. They came out and got blown out the very next game.
Mike Vick, the $100 million dollar man Reid put into place, is on the verge of being benched by a back-up nobody.
Well, let's just cut to the chase and say that it's becoming apparent that Andy Reid's 14-year run as coach, and 1-year run as the Grand Poobah is about to come to an end. The owner has stated another season of failure won't be tolerated. Unless the Eagles go on a huge tear, and there's very little reason to believe they will, Reid will be fired.
I say if people are going to judge Banner, they need to wait until after the season is over to see how things played out in Philly.
I know the great fear is that he's going to have big input on personnel decisions. Contract negotiations for a new regime does not constitute big input on personnel decisions. If it comes to be that he has a hand in choosing who comes here, then we may have a problem. If it comes to be that he has to approve the deals made on personnel brought here by other people, it's a non-factor. But to judge the overall job Banner did in Philly right now would be selling Banner and the integrity of the judgement process short. Gotta wait until this year plays out in Philly.
Quote:
I know the great fear is that he's going to have big input on personnel decisions. Contract negotiations for a new regime does not constitute big input on personnel decisions. If it comes to be that he has a hand in choosing who comes here, then we may have a problem. If it comes to be that he has to approve the deals made on personnel brought here by other people, it's a non-factor.
Umm...really? Because Mangini had to "approve the deals made on personnel" intended by Kokinis here too...there's actually a factual story about this I already posted half a dozen times on here. I think it's a BIG problem if Banner has the power "to approve/veto" stuff he has no clue about...be prepared for a muppet GM Toad, because this has all the makings of it
That said, there are 2 no name guys I could be ok with...1 is from within with our Director of College Scouting John Spytek, the other is the Giants' one Marc Ross, who was the Eagles DoCS 10 years ago at age 27, 10 years later and with the draft success the Giants had, he looks like ready for the next step (their FO/GM are what I call "value-whores" on draft day, very similar style to Ozzie, strictly BPA...love the style)...so there ARE ties. So, if H&H absolutely feel urged to change for the sake of their egos I hope they keep the WCO, the 4-3 and promote one of those GMs...that's probably the only "tear down" scenario that will keep me watching Browns football in 2013...otoh, if they do this, it's less consquential of a "tear down" and I might be even more angry why they chose to fire everyone...that scenario would probably be a giveaway that it's all about egos only...we will see.
Oh, and just because Reid might be wrong, that doesn't mean Banner would have done better/be right...logic 101...hopefully
Quote:
be prepared for a muppet GM Toad, because this has all the makings of it
You've said this a number of times and I can't take it any more.. it's PUPPET... a leader in title with no real power is a PUPPET.. not a muppet. 
Quote:
Quote:
be prepared for a muppet GM Toad, because this has all the makings of it
You've said this a number of times and I can't take it any more.. it's PUPPET... a leader in title with no real power is a PUPPET.. not a muppet.
Unless that puppet is controlled by the ghost of Jim Henson, or Frank Oz.... or has ever been associated with Fraggle Rock.
Speaking of Fraggle Rock reminded me.. I sat and youtubed old Schoolhouse Rock videos for the kids last night...
Quote:
Quote:
be prepared for a muppet GM Toad, because this has all the makings of it
You've said this a number of times and I can't take it any more.. it's PUPPET... a leader in title with no real power is a PUPPET.. not a muppet.
Well, he's both.....I know what a muppet is for Britains and that's exactly what I mean....american english isn't a world language, you know?
Google it
Quote:
Well, he's both.....I know what a muppet is for Britains and that's exactly what I mean....american english isn't a world language, you know?
Google it
Does this look like Britain to you? Now let's get off this topic and go back to talking about American Football.
Quote:
Umm...really? Because Mangini had to "approve the deals made on personnel" intended by Kokinis here too...there's actually a factual story about this I already posted half a dozen times on here.
That was a power-hungry coach who controlled the people in the front office.
This is a CEO who handles contract negotiations and sits in a custodial role to make sure that the out-going regime doesn't take insane risks to try and save their asses.
You can't begin to compare the two scenarios.
Quote:
I think it's a BIG problem if Banner has the power "to approve/veto" stuff he has no clue about...be prepared for a muppet GM Toad, because this has all the makings of it
I won't prepare for Ocar the Grouch as a GM but I do agree that we'll be in trouble if Banner has the power to make moves he doesn't have a history of understanding.
I've seen zero proof one way or another which would indicate he's going to have that power, so I see no reason to fear anything at this point.
I'm just glad that Lerner is finally out of the picture, and that Holmgren the meddler and micromanager is packing his crap up as we speak.
Now as for Heckert, I'd rather he not go anywhere, though I would completely understand if he get shown the door. I view that as a solid trade-off: If losing Heckert meant finally dumping Lerner and Holmgren, hey, that's a trade-off I'd have taken 10 times out of ten.
As for the names you've thrown out there, I've no opinion one way or another. I'll wait until the chips start hitting the table before I see what hand I'd play.
j/c
According to Damon's "Noll comparison"......... I'm thinking he is suggesting seven!
Shurmur will have to win out and/or make the playoffs to keep his job. Haslem's face said it all during the colts game. Shurmur has continued to prove to us he cannot manage the clock. We weekly have to burn 1-2 TO to avoid delay of games after big plays. And for every well schemed drive we have we follow up with an UGLY 3 and out. He just does not have the make up of a HC in the NFL
Shurmur did get a little more animated on the sidelines this weekend. I think he called Chuckie and asked for advice.
Dead. Man. Walking.
It doesn't matter what they do from here on out.
Agreed. It's all over but the shouting.