What Can We Learn From New Hot Teams

[Frenchie]

These 4 teams are off to a hot start - despite that, like our Browns, they've been perennial "bottom suckers" for the last few years. What have they done differently than we have? I know we're 2-2 and it's a long season still to go, but we may have seen enough to know that these other teams seem to have turned a corner and the Browns seemingly have not. Is it the QB, RB, Coach, Off. System, talent, etc? I would like to hear your opinion. Make it as detailed or general as you feel comfortable. And if someone is insulted by my insinuation of these teams' success / the lack of our success, I apologize in advance. I'm as big a fan as all of you.

[Earl34]

Frenchie-

 

I think that there are a few reasons and perhaps in some cases they apply more to one team than the others. For my money it boils down like this:

 

1) Winning the trenches. There really is NOT a position in football that you can ignore but offensive line is a great place to build; you can have all of the great skill players in the world but if no one blocks, you're hosed. Tom Brady looks awful pedestrian under pressure. Detroit has built a solid offensive line and a dominant defensive line. Control the line of scrimmage and you control the game.

 

2) Franchise QB. I don't know that SF or Buffalo have one but Detroit does and none of the QBs playing for these teams are making huge mistakes.

 

3) Multi-dimensional offense- You'll notice that all of these teams can find balance on offense. Sure, the Lions like to pass more than run (as most teams nowadays do) but they have to be able to run the ball enough...especially when they have to get a yard or run clock. They don't rely on one weapon.

 

4) Athletic defense- San Francisco is winning mainly on defense and it's one that's been built over time.

 

5) Learning how to win. I know our previous coach is not the most popular guy but teams have to learn how to win and finish off opponents. How many times have we seen the Browns play well enough to win but come up short? It's about limiting mistakes and executing when it matters most.

 

Of course, the experts always seem to say that if you're building from scratch the importance of the players acquired starts with QB, LT, pass rusher, MLB...that's not a bad way to think about it as those are the highest impact when building a core. Ask yourself: Does SF/Buf/Det/Oakland have those? Let's look

 

SF: Alex Smith, ?Aldon Smith, Staley, Patrick Willis (3 of 4 at least)

Buf: Fitzpatrick, ?Shawn Merriman, Demetrius Bell, Nick Barnett (2 or 3 of 4)

Det: Stafford, Vanden Bosch, Jeff Backus, ?Steven Tulloch (I will argue 4 of 4)

Oak: ?Campbell, ?Veldheer (has been good), Lamarr Houston, McClain (at least 2 of 4)

 

Where do the Browns sort out?

 

?McCoy, Thomas, ?Sheard/Mitchell, Jackson. That's 2 of 4 by this man's estimation.

[BrownIndian]

1. We got to hit on our Draft picks.

2. Continuity, If the coaches seem to be taking the team in the right direction.

[Frenchie]

Frenchie-

 

I think that there are a few reasons and perhaps in some cases they apply more to one team than the others. For my money it boils down like this:

 

1) Winning the trenches. There really is NOT a position in football that you can ignore but offensive line is a great place to build; you can have all of the great skill players in the world but if no one blocks, you're hosed. Tom Brady looks awful pedestrian under pressure. Detroit has built a solid offensive line and a dominant defensive line. Control the line of scrimmage and you control the game.

 

2) Franchise QB. I don't know that SF or Buffalo have one but Detroit does and none of the QBs playing for these teams are making huge mistakes.

 

3) Multi-dimensional offense- You'll notice that all of these teams can find balance on offense. Sure, the Lions like to pass more than run (as most teams nowadays do) but they have to be able to run the ball enough...especially when they have to get a yard or run clock. They don't rely on one weapon.

 

4) Athletic defense- San Francisco is winning mainly on defense and it's one that's been built over time.

 

5) Learning how to win. I know our previous coach is not the most popular guy but teams have to learn how to win and finish off opponents. How many times have we seen the Browns play well enough to win but come up short? It's about limiting mistakes and executing when it matters most.

 

Of course, the experts always seem to say that if you're building from scratch the importance of the players acquired starts with QB, LT, pass rusher, MLB...that's not a bad way to think about it as those are the highest impact when building a core. Ask yourself: Does SF/Buf/Det/Oakland have those? Let's look

 

SF: Alex Smith, ?Aldon Smith, Staley, Patrick Willis (3 of 4 at least)

Buf: Fitzpatrick, ?Shawn Merriman, Demetrius Bell, Nick Barnett (2 or 3 of 4)

Det: Stafford, Vanden Bosch, Jeff Backus, ?Steven Tulloch (I will argue 4 of 4)

Oak: ?Campbell, ?Veldheer (has been good), Lamarr Houston, McClain (at least 2 of 4)

 

Where do the Browns sort out?

 

?McCoy, Thomas, ?Sheard/Mitchell, Jackson. That's 2 of 4 by this man's estimation.

 

 

A well thoughtout analysis - very much appreciated. I honestly thought I was going to get a lot of one sentence, snarky responses.

[Frenchie]

Frenchie,

 

There are definite ingredients that go into a winning team. However, people are simpletons when talking about success and winning. I think mostly if a person has never run a successful company, grown a business or otherwise accomplished the very pinnacle of something, they really aren't going to have much to offer up, at least much of any value on this topic.

 

Could you imagine Donald Trump sitting down to talk strategies with someone who has never earned $250,000 in a year? Of course not. So too, will most of the comments here come from nincompoops.

 

Some SB winners seem to have common ingredients, yet others weave off course, ie the SB Ravens who won with a shit QB. The first thing that a successful person learns is that you cannot find success by duplicating what has already come and passed.

 

Case in point, the Browns; they try over and over to hire people who were successful in the past, only to find out that it always fails. This is predicatble, and so to will Holmgren fail.

 

Why? SIMPLE............. time doens't stand still. Circumstances that once were, will never be again. What worked in the past, isn't applicable today. Those players, conditions, level of competition, bounce of the ball, injuries, lucky breaks, etc etc etc............. will never come together again.

 

Holmgren has never worked as a GM in his life. He is being paid to learn and he is too satisfied and fat to have any hunger to win.

 

THAT, in essence what those teams have, and the Browns don't; A hunger to win.

 

Are all successful GM's hungry to win? And unsuccessful ones not hungry? I agree with your point about Holmgren "learning" and about his inexperience, and time that doesn't stand still. But why do you think Holmgren doesn't have a hunger to win and where does it say that such a hunger makes a difference between the winning teams and the losing teams. So, respectfully, I'm not disagreeing with you but asking you to support your response. What are H&H or the Browns doing/not doing (observations, please) to make you believe they are accepting of losing. Past Browns regimes that have lost too many games were fired so I'm not sure this is the outcome H&H would desire.

[tampadawgs]

Easy

 

Lions- Stafford is on the field and they have Megatron the baddest wide out in the game, plus the last 23 yrs its all about defense in the draft (that is what the Browns are doing and like it)

 

49ers- coaching, coaching, coaching they have had really solid drafts over the years- Have all world Linebacker, and Gore is a Machine when heathly. Plus they have a top 4 tight end

 

Raiders- Always thought they were a solid QB away from being a very good team. They have the nasty running game with Mcfadden and Bush, there defense will punch you in the mouth, and they too have had solid drafts over the past couple of years.

 

Bills- Journyman QB who now has comeinto his own, it happpens, but not very often. They finely figured out Fred Jackson is a monster. There defense causes ALOT of turnovers 12 picks already this season.

 

Out of all these teams I think the Bills are the one who will start to come back to earth. Raiders they are a great QB away from being a super bowl type team samething with the 9ers even thou both QBs are playing solid football

 

The Lions are the real deal, the only bad part is the Packers stand in there way.

[bringbackbrownie2]

Frenchie,

 

There are definite ingredients that go into a winning team. However, people are simpletons when talking about success and winning. I think mostly if a person has never run a successful company, grown a business or otherwise accomplished the very pinnacle of something, they really aren't going to have much to offer up, at least much of any value on this topic.

 

Could you imagine Donald Trump sitting down to talk strategies with someone who has never earned $250,000 in a year? Of course not. So too, will most of the comments here come from nincompoops.

 

Some SB winners seem to have common ingredients, yet others weave off course, ie the SB Ravens who won with a shit QB. The first thing that a successful person learns is that you cannot find success by duplicating what has already come and passed.

 

Case in point, the Browns; they try over and over to hire people who were successful in the past, only to find out that it always fails. This is predicatble, and so to will Holmgren fail.

 

Why? SIMPLE............. time doens't stand still. Circumstances that once were, will never be again. What worked in the past, isn't applicable today. Those players, conditions, level of competition, bounce of the ball, injuries, lucky breaks, etc etc etc............. will never come together again.

 

Holmgren has never worked as a GM in his life. He is being paid to learn and he is too satisfied and fat to have any hunger to win.

 

THAT, in essence what those teams have, and the Browns don't; A hunger to win.

 

So you are saying you would rather have a guy like Trump as a GM instead of Holmgren? Holmgren actually has been successful in football and knows how the business works. You must have forgotten that Trump already failed in football! Maybe this will refresh your memory: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/28/trumps-youre-fired-moment-in-football/. Just because you are successful in 1 business endeavor does not mean you will be in another.

[calfoxwc]

Alas, poor Frenchie -

 

you ask a tough question, with little definite answer.

 

but here is what I think: ... that we can learn from those teams, to NOT DRAFT the wrong players.

We can also learn, from Detroit, to freakin beef up your dline. Other than that, we can learn

to sign other players who we SHOULD have drafted, after they have been proven to be solid picks by other teams.

 

Detroit finally started getting their dynamic draft picks correctly.

 

Oh, here's another - DO NOT DRAFT BASED ON PAPER REPORTS/VIDEO ALONE.

 

Most of the following names are players these teams wish they hadn't drafted, I think - Detroit started to hit paydirt in the last couple of years.

And these hot teams you mention - wouldn't last a day, even now, in the Browns' division - except Detroit.

SMART teams, draft based on a consistent, solid philosophy - based on in depth personal appraisal of the KIND of player they draft.

 

If the Browns had done that, they would never have drafted Braylon... or Quinn, or Winslow, or Green... the list is long, long, long.

 

Savage, for the Browns, was a fool - he drafted based on superficial paper reports and video, never for character, love of the game, work ethic, intelligence, etc...

 

It also helps to FINALLY get the right coaches in place. The Browns have done that now, and the drafts have

been pretty intelligent the last couple of years. The Browns are on their way.

 

. But, anyways, doing a bit ot research:

***********************************

2004

 

1 (first overal pick) Oakland Robert Gallery OT

6 (sixth overall) Detroit Roy Williams WR

7 (seventh overall) Bills Lee Evans WR

31 ? 49's Rashan Woods WR

***********************************

2005

 

1 49's Alex Smith QB

10 Detroit Mike Williams WR

23 Oakland Fabian Washington CB

(no bills pick...?)

************************************

2006

 

6 49's Vernon Davis TE

7 Oakland Michael Huff SS

8 Bills Donte Witner SS

9 Detroit Ernie Sims

**********************************

2007

 

1 Oakland Jamarcus Russel QB

2 Detroit Calvin Johnson WR

11 49's Patrick Willis LB

12 Bills Marshawn Lynch RB

************************************

2008

 

4 Oakland Darren McFadden

11 Bills Leodis McKevin CB

17 Detroit Goder Cheritus OT

29 49's Kentwan Lalmer DE

************************************

2009

 

1 Detroit Mathew Stafford QB

7 Oakland Darius Hayward-Bey WR

10 49's Michael Crabtree

11 Bills Aaron Maybin DE

************************************

2010

 

2 Detroit Ndamukong Suh DT

8 Oakland Rolando McClain MLB

9 Bills C.J. Spiller

11 49's Anthony Davis OT

**************************************

2011

 

3 Bills Marcell Darius DT

7 49's Aldon Smith LB

13 Detroit Nick Fairley DT

(Bills, no pick)

[hoorta]

Alas, poor Frenchie -

 

 

 

What your post proves above all Cal is: continually drafting busts in the first round= U R gonna suck.

[choco]

So you are saying you would rather have a guy like Trump as a GM instead of Holmgren? Holmgren actually has been successful in football and knows how the business works. You must have forgotten that Trump already failed in football! Maybe this will refresh your memory: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/28/trumps-youre-fired-moment-in-football/. Just because you are successful in 1 business endeavor does not mean you will be in another.

just what has holmgren done....exactly?

 

won a superbowl as a coach, with ron wolf as his GM...whom i might add, brought in farve and white.

 

took a huge position with the seahawks as Exec. VP, GM and head coach. how long did that gig last? 4 years....he was fired as GM after 4 years. a few years later, after he was stictly the coach, he took them to the superbowl in '05.

 

now he's here in a role he failed at once. that gives me that warm and fuzzy...ya know? great coach, failure as a leader.

[bringbackbrownie2]

just what has holmgren done....exactly?

 

won a superbowl as a coach, with ron wolf as his GM...whom i might add, brought in farve and white.

 

took a huge position with the seahawks as Exec. VP, GM and head coach. how long did that gig last? 4 years....he was fired as GM after 4 years. a few years later, after he was stictly the coach, he took them to the superbowl in '05.

 

now he's here in a role he failed at once. that gives me that warm and fuzzy...ya know? great coach, failure as a leader.

 

I am not proclaiming Holmgren as our savior. My point is he actually has football knowledge. He was responsible for bringing in Heckert and it has resulted in 2 pretty good drafts. The jury is still out on Shurmur but I don't see how you can write off Holmgren for what he has done here so far.

[USFBrown]

Could you imagine Donald Trump sitting down to talk strategies with someone who has never earned $250,000 in a year? Of course not. So too, will most of the comments here come from nincompoops.

 

Yes, you are a nincompoop.

[USFBrown]

So you are saying you would rather have a guy like Trump as a GM instead of Holmgren? Holmgren actually has been successful in football and knows how the business works. You must have forgotten that Trump already failed in football! Maybe this will refresh your memory: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/28/trumps-youre-fired-moment-in-football/. Just because you are successful in 1 business endeavor does not mean you will be in another.

 

Do people even read posts anymore? You're just as bad as the guy you're trying to flame about comprehending a paragraph.

 

He made a comparison to a Trump taking advice from a guy who makes $250,000 a year is like the Browns Front Office taking advice from us.

[Pumpkin Eater]

It takes time to recover from years of shitty drafts.

[bringbackbrownie2]

Do people even read posts anymore? You're just as bad as the guy you're trying to flame about comprehending a paragraph.

 

He made a comparison to a Trump taking advice from a guy who makes $250,000 a year is like the Browns Front Office taking advice from us.

 

You are missing the point. His first 2 paragraphs of his previous post are an attempt to inflate his ego and discredit our opinions. He has countless other posts telling us how he has been really successful in the music industry. I’m assuming he has probably made over 250k in a year so he is trying to lump himself in a category with Trump (which is still laughable), while assuming the rest of us have never made that much (which according to him = nincompoops). And because of his success in one industry, he thinks he has superior football knowledge. So my point was to show that guys like Trump can have success in one industry, but that doesn’t mean they have superior knowledge in another. So no I was not specifically just talking about Trump. Put 2 and 2 together here…

[rich4eagle]

Frenchie-

 

I think that there are a few reasons and perhaps in some cases they apply more to one team than the others. For my money it boils down like this:

 

1) Winning the trenches. There really is NOT a position in football that you can ignore but offensive line is a great place to build; you can have all of the great skill players in the world but if no one blocks, you're hosed. Tom Brady looks awful pedestrian under pressure. Detroit has built a solid offensive line and a dominant defensive line. Control the line of scrimmage and you control the game.

 

2) Franchise QB. I don't know that SF or Buffalo have one but Detroit does and none of the QBs playing for these teams are making huge mistakes.

 

3) Multi-dimensional offense- You'll notice that all of these teams can find balance on offense. Sure, the Lions like to pass more than run (as most teams nowadays do) but they have to be able to run the ball enough...especially when they have to get a yard or run clock. They don't rely on one weapon.

 

4) Athletic defense- San Francisco is winning mainly on defense and it's one that's been built over time.

 

5) Learning how to win. I know our previous coach is not the most popular guy but teams have to learn how to win and finish off opponents. How many times have we seen the Browns play well enough to win but come up short? It's about limiting mistakes and executing when it matters most.

 

Of course, the experts always seem to say that if you're building from scratch the importance of the players acquired starts with QB, LT, pass rusher, MLB...that's not a bad way to think about it as those are the highest impact when building a core. Ask yourself: Does SF/Buf/Det/Oakland have those? Let's look

 

SF: Alex Smith, ?Aldon Smith, Staley, Patrick Willis (3 of 4 at least)

Buf: Fitzpatrick, ?Shawn Merriman, Demetrius Bell, Nick Barnett (2 or 3 of 4)

Det: Stafford, Vanden Bosch, Jeff Backus, ?Steven Tulloch (I will argue 4 of 4)

Oak: ?Campbell, ?Veldheer (has been good), Lamarr Houston, McClain (at least 2 of 4)

 

Where do the Browns sort out?

 

?McCoy, Thomas, ?Sheard/Mitchell, Jackson. That's 2 of 4 by this man's estimation.

 

 

 

As opposed to Earl, the trenches are for duffesses, the way to winning is players who make plays on offense followed by disruptive d players.........but of course Brownstown has been enamored with D and useless bloated OL guys and that is the problem.. Defense does not win Championships OFFENSE DOEs............and the easiest part to fix is the OL and the part that does jack when the skill players suck

 

 

 

When Brownstown gets it ..........maybe we will win...............and maybe you will see the light it ..........it ends in the trenches not starts there

[lambdo]

Is everyone panicking and we're .500? When we beat the Gaider's we're going to be one game out. We have played tough defences ( Cinci / Miami with Sparano's back on the wall / Tenn)

 

So I don't see how we score less then 20 vs. the raiders.

 

Can we keep Run DMC in check? Will be tough he's the best back in football..but let the raiders take their penalties

 

The only thing that is scary is return to the black hole first game back after Al Davis...it will be a wild scene so we have to keep it close in the first Q.

[rich4eagle]

Is everyone panicking and we're .500? When we beat the Gaider's we're going to be one game out. We have played tough defences ( Cinci / Miami with Sparano's back on the wall / Tenn)

 

So I don't see how we score less then 20 vs. the raiders.

 

Can we keep Run DMC in check? Will be tough he's the best back in football..but let the raiders take their penalties

 

The only thing that is scary is return to the black hole first game back after Al Davis...it will be a wild scene so we have to keep it close in the first Q.

 

 

 

I again guess you missed how the OL is the last thing in wiinning and the the D second last........................maybe sometimes Brownstown will get it

[Earl34]

Is everyone panicking and we're .500? When we beat the Gaider's we're going to be one game out. We have played tough defences ( Cinci / Miami with Sparano's back on the wall / Tenn)

 

So I don't see how we score less then 20 vs. the raiders.

 

Can we keep Run DMC in check? Will be tough he's the best back in football..but let the raiders take their penalties

 

The only thing that is scary is return to the black hole first game back after Al Davis...it will be a wild scene so we have to keep it close in the first Q.

 

We aren't going to be able to control either line of scrimmage and our defensive back seven is slow while they are stacked with speed. So. Tell me again how we're going to beat the Raiders?

[Frenchie]

Is everyone panicking and we're .500? When we beat the Gaider's we're going to be one game out. We have played tough defences ( Cinci / Miami with Sparano's back on the wall / Tenn)

 

So I don't see how we score less then 20 vs. the raiders.

 

Can we keep Run DMC in check? Will be tough he's the best back in football..but let the raiders take their penalties

 

The only thing that is scary is return to the black hole first game back after Al Davis...it will be a wild scene so we have to keep it close in the first Q.

 

I'll be the first to route for the Browns and hope they win this weekend. I do believe that on any given Sunday any NFL team has a good chance of winning against any other team. But I am disappointed by what I've seen so far by the Browns in the first four games (inconsistent and uncoordinated) and I saw the highlights of the last Raiders game. I am concerned that going into the black hole, our team could get intimidated, beaten up, and run over. Let's hope my fears are just that.

[Frenchie]

I am not proclaiming Holmgren as our savior. My point is he actually has football knowledge. He was responsible for bringing in Heckert and it has resulted in 2 pretty good drafts. The jury is still out on Shurmur but I don't see how you can write off Holmgren for what he has done here so far.

 

I hear you and you're right about what Holmgren has done well. But I'll also say that I am disappointed that he has not done more. That's a lot of money for a guy that hired someone to make quality draft picks and a few good trades. I expected him to be much more of a seasoned leader and strategist. I could be wrong looking at it from way out here, but "his" team is lacking in many areas that I think he could have done more to improve it. Furthermore, he implemented a whole new system on offence that doesn't use our strengths as well as last year and was brought in during a strike shortened season.

 

Perhaps I'm being too harsh. I don't know.