ESPN's John Clayton Reporting Holmgren Will Fire Mangini

[samoth]

Christ Mortenson yesterday said Mangini isnt 100% getting fired since he's a Parcells guy and Parcells and Holmgren are close friends and on the same page, so I don't think anyone really knows.

[Kosar_For_President]

[JoeSixPat]

Is there anything we (as fans and as members of the Brown's Board) can do to send a message to Holmgren and Lerner that we want EM to be given the chance he deserves? Can the Browns Board pin a thread where we can voice our concern and send it with everyone's comments to their respective offices?

 

I think the fact that a blackout was narrowly averted just a few weeks ago was taken by Lerner as a loud and clear message by the fans. Ticket sales and profits are nearly everything to an owner.

 

He responded by taking away GM duties from Mangini (or at least the power to choose the GM as he did with Kokinis) and bring in Holmgren to do what HOLMGREN thinks needs to be done - not the owner, and not the fans.

 

 

[JoeSixPat]

Christ Mortenson yesterday said Mangini isnt 100% getting fired since he's a Parcells guy and Parcells and Holmgren are close friends and on the same page, so I don't think anyone really knows.

 

 

Mangini as a "Parcells guy" might be news to Parcells (who was invoked by Holmgren when explaining that firing a coach after 1 year can be justified.)

 

Mangini's only association was as a Defensive Assistant under Belichick when Belichick was reporting to Parcells.

 

You could make a better case that Mangini is a "Belichick guy" since the reason Mangini had the defensive assistant job in NYC was because Mangini impressed him as PR Intern and ballboy during his first stint in Cleveland.

 

You can say what you want about Clayton or anyone in the media but they wouldn't say something like that if they didn't have a source. Whether that source is right is debateable.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

You could make a better case that Mangini is a "Belichick guy" since the reason Mangini had the defensive assistant job in NYC was because Mangini impressed him as PR Intern and ballboy during his first stint in Cleveland.

 

 

Mangini is a "Belichick guy". That's a well-known fact. Just because he hates Belichick doesn't mean he's not from his coaching tree. The only thing people are saying is that Mangini and Parcells have a relationship, albeit very loose.

[peterbell]

I think the fact that a blackout was narrowly averted just a few weeks ago was taken by Lerner as a loud and clear message by the fans. Ticket sales and profits are nearly everything to an owner.

 

He responded by taking away GM duties from Mangini (or at least the power to choose the GM as he did with Kokinis) and bring in Holmgren to do what HOLMGREN thinks needs to be done - not the owner, and not the fans.

 

 

Taking away GM duties..geez`Joe thats a reach even for you..I believe I've read somewhere that Mangini and Parcells are close Mangini as is Parcells and Holgrem..Mangini and Reid..Reid and Holgrem.one big happy family.

[JoeSixPat]

Mangini is a "Belichick guy". That's a well-known fact. Just because he hates Belichick doesn't mean he's not from his coaching tree. The only thing people are saying is that Mangini and Parcells have a relationship, albeit very loose.

 

I agree. But the notion that Holmgren wouldn't fire Mangini over his better judgement because 10 years ago Mangini reported to Belichick who reported to Parcells and Holmgren likes Parcells is ludicrous.

 

Holmgren's got his reputation as an NFL decision maker on the line. Furthermore he likely wants 100% credit for bringinig in one of "his guys" - likely someone familiar with the West Coast offense. I don't think he'll be swayed by such a weak association with Parcells. Heck - if Mangini were Parcells' own son I don't think that would influence Holmgren.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I agree. But the notion that Holmgren wouldn't fire Mangini over his better judgement because 10 years ago Mangini reported to Belichick who reported to Parcells and Holmgren likes Parcells is ludicrous.

 

Holmgren's got his reputation as an NFL decision maker on the line. Furthermore he likely wants 100% credit for bringinig in one of "his guys" - likely someone familiar with the West Coast offense. I don't think he'll be swayed by such a weak association with Parcells. Heck - if Mangini were Parcells' own son I don't think that would influence Holmgren.

 

I agree. It is a very weak association. I believe that Holmgren is keeping Mangini for two reasons, though. Firstly, Holmgren has already stated that it would be unfair to fire a coach after one year. If he then goes against his own advice and cans Mangini, it could cause some unwanted friction for him in Cleveland. Granted, not many people in Cleveland are happy with Mangini at the current moment, but to say one thing and do another is not a quality that is highly esteemed in any person, much less a person in a position of power. It's a very weak reason, I know, but Holmgren seems like a man of principle to me. Then again, it could just be wishful thinking in my book.

 

Secondly, Mangini has laid a foundation in Cleveland. We're on a streak, however small it may be. More important than our "winning streak" however is the fact that our players are playing for something, whatever it may be. Josh Cribbs has already gone on record endorsing Mangini and his system, and I believe he may be the voice of the locker room. Lord knows it's not BQ. For Holmgren to come in and take away Mangini, it would disrupt whatever plan he already has in place. Granted, it is early on, and it's not like we're exactly thought of as being playoff contenders. But the players are buying into Mangini's system, and if their trust is taken away, it would be hard for Holmgren to get it back.

 

We all know Holmgren wants to turn us around. It's good publicity, it would make for a good story, and it probably makes him feel good as well. But I don't think he's looking to come in, clean house, and start over fresh. Personally, I believe he's looking to come in, trim the hedges, and guide us to success. It would take too much time, and frankly, too much work, to start over fresh with an entire new staff. Plus, Lerner has to look at the figures. He's already paying two coaches who are no longer with us, and I don't think he's looking to pay a third. I think part of the negotiations between Lerner and Holmgren involved keeping Mangini around, but maybe just limiting his power.

 

I could be wrong, but that's just my gut feeling.

[Flugel]

I agree, that's why I cannot imagine why the Walrus wouldn't keep Mangini for at least another year. Holmgren has got to recognize progress when he sees it. And considering the fact that his contract may be for 10 years, it can only help him to give the coach another year. Now, if he were under a 3 year deal, I could see him wanting to get his own guy in here and sprint to the finish. Lerner has let him know with the 10 year deal that he is in it for the long-haul and so he shouldn't be rushed to make rash, uneducated decisions.

 

How does Morningwig still have job offers in the NFL?

 

 

GREAT back and forth here guys.

 

SOME guys make ideal coordinators when a STRONGER presence above them is the Head Coach. That doesn't in any way shape or form mean a Greg Williams, Gary Kubiak, Dave Wannestadt, Dom Capers, Lindy Infante, Mike Martz or Wade Phillips is sure bet to be a GREAT Head Coach. The Marty Morningsickness rumor is about the cruelest news you can give Browns' fan finally enjoying some degree of progress and momentum. If that goes down, I'm gonna kidnap our owner and hide him in the tropics where the Rooneys stashed their HGH doctor out of reach from investigations. Randy's prolly looking for another hobby with that inheritance anyway.

 

I still can't even fathom Mike Holgren already had the job before he even met Lerner. The guy shows up to Cleveland knowing the moron owner has ZERO intentions of interviewing 1 other person. All he's thinking about is how much cake he can leverage out of our version of "Brewster's Millions." It's the same knee jerk criteria without a shred of showing me as a fan he's learned a freakin thing.

 

I've heard some GOOD sources saying Parcels was interested in coming here. If you want a PROVEN record of turning losers into winners here's what I have for you from the Parcels resume:

1) 1st season w/ Giants 1-15 before they won 2 Superbowls and frequented playoffs

2) 1st season in NE he drafted Bledsoe and they went 1-15 before they would make a Superbowl & frequent playoffs

3) The Jets hired him because they were soft and he had Vinny Testaverde lead the to a Conference Championship Game at Denver

4) He took over Jerry Jones' Dallas in Chains and made them playoff material

5) The Dolphins were 1-15 just 1 year before they were Tuna'd. 1st year there - they improved to 11-5 and playoffs.

 

Does that look like a guy that firmly understands how to shop for winners and sic em?

- Tom F.

 

[WilsonTheVolleyball]

This is hilarious with all the sudden Mangini love. The guy beat the Steelers once and he's the hero of Cleveland. All this talk about "progress" is hilarious. I recall RAC making huge progress with the 2007 Browns...

 

Sorry to say, but I thought Browns fans were smarter than this. You guys are the football center of the United States and a class A town. To be satisfied with Mangini is to be satisfied with mediocrity at best. Cleveland deserves better, IMO.

[Alo]

A year ago, we were talking about how the Savage-Crennel experiment failed because there was a disconnect between the players brought in and the ones desired by the head coach.

 

Now, people here think it'd be desirable to have Holmgren and/or his chosen GM drafting 3-4 personnel for Mangini, something they've likely got little experience doing. Similarly, Mangini would be asked to oversee a WCO or, like Crennel, give up all of his authority on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Do we really want to go back to the Crennel-Savage situation? Are you all confident that Mangini and Holmgren both are great & magnanimous football guys, to the point that they can make a management structure that screwed up the previous regime work?

 

It seems like we're unlearning the lessons of 2005-2008. And I'm not sure we should expect Holmgren to wipe clean his memory bank as well: he's already said that the existence of factions in Seattle - people who were already there before him vs. people he brought in - affected the quality of his 1999 draft class.

 

I'm not sure he'll want to repeat that by having his OC calling for WCO playmakers, while Mangini is screaming that a certain player is a perfect fit for a defensive scheme Holmgren isn't intimately familiar with. Absent some luck, which the Browns haven't had much of as of late, that seems like a recipe for disaster.

[Kosar_For_President]

A year ago, we were talking about how the Savage-Crennel experiment failed because there was a disconnect between the players brought in and the ones desired by the head coach.

 

Now, people here think it'd be desirable to have Holmgren and/or his chosen GM drafting 3-4 personnel for Mangini, something they've likely got little experience doing. Similarly, Mangini would be asked to oversee a WCO or, like Crennel, give up all of his authority on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Do we really want to go back to the Crennel-Savage situation? Are you all confident that Mangini and Holmgren both are great & magnanimous football guys, to the point that they can make a management structure that screwed up the previous regime work?

 

It seems like we're unlearning the lessons of 2005-2008. And I'm not sure we should expect Holmgren to wipe clean his memory bank as well: he's already said that the existence of factions in Seattle - people who were already there before him vs. people he brought in - affected the quality of his 1999 draft class.

 

I'm not sure he'll want to repeat that by having his OC calling for WCO playmakers, while Mangini is screaming that a certain player is a perfect fit for a defensive scheme Holmgren isn't intimately familiar with. Absent some luck, which the Browns haven't had much of as of late, that seems to me like a recipe for disaster.

 

These are some pretty big assumptions, Alo. We really don't know what is going on behind closed doors. Might turn out to be dynamic in a good way with Mangini?

 

I think the thing to think about here is Holmgren has never been GM full time. I think this is a very different situation then was in Seattle. I think who ever is coach, we need to focus on the fact The Walrus is our GM full time. Take the Steelers for example, the GM built a team you could bring in any coach and succeed. Look at the Colts, they are 14-0 without Dungy. You know.

 

I'm a glass is half full type of guy, unless I am talking to the Steeler fag trolls on the board.

[Alo]

These are some pretty big assumptions, Alo. We really don't know what is going on behind closed doors. Might turn out to be dynamic in a good way with Mangini?

It might work, just like the Savage-Crennel had a chance of working. In the end, it didn't, proving that the likelihood of success is greater if you have a GM & HC of like minds and compatible temperaments working together to build a successful franchise.

 

Pioli-Belichick was the model we were sold a year ago. Ultimately, however, the Kokinis-Mangini pairing didn't work. Now, we're in a situation in which people here are arguing that Holmgren would be making a huge mistake if he gets rid of Mangini.

 

My argument is that it could be an even bigger blunder for Holmgren to retain a coach whose temperament is incompatible with Holmgren's, or whose philosophy and personnel preferences are vastly different from what the Walrus wants.

 

Ultimately, it's up to Holmgren to determine if that's the case. But the resolute proclamations here that Holmgren must retain Mangini seem to deny him the right to make that important decision.

 

Like some here, I'm kind of ambivalent about the Holmgren hire. But if we're now using the Parcells czar as a model, he should be given free latitude to retain or, alternatively, bring in a coach he thinks he can work with. Similarly, we should hope that he brings in a personnel man who can insure our draft record improves, something I fear we may not get if the rumors about Randy Mueller becoming our GM are accurate.

[Kosar_For_President]

Agreed Alo. I hope it could work, but as long as Mangini knows The Walrus is the new boss. I think it would be a step back if we get rid of Mangini at this point. If Holmes can concentrate on drafting, it think it would be beneficial. The players in place seem to be responding better in recent weeks. Not saying it's the end all, just saying the players that are here now are playing for their coach. If those players are in place, the new draftees will buy in too.

 

Just a thought.

[Alo]

And for an example of how Mangini and Holmgren might not be philosophically simpatico, here's Holmgren talking on his radio show (10/02) about committing to starting quarterbacks:

 

"If a team decides to go with a quarterback - if it's Brady Quinn in Cleveland, if it's Jake Delhomme in Carolina, wherever it is - once you make that decision as a head coach, you have to do everything in your power to commit to that kid. He cannot feel like he's looking over his shoulder every time he throws an interception.

 

And so he commits to you, and you commit to him. And you live through the bumpy things together, but then you have to see progress, you have to see it going in the right direction. It's not the civil service, where it's a lifetime deal. You gotta prove it, you gotta prove that it's working and improving.

 

I've never been one with the quick hook, and I think you make a mistake when you do that."

I bet quotes like these are a big part of why Clayton is convinced these Holmgren will fire Mangini. Even if the BQ thing is in the past, I doubt Holmgren trusts Mangini to handle whoever's our starting QB next year, whether it's Quinn, a veteran, or a rookie.

[Flugel]

It might Like some here, I'm kind of ambivalent about the Holmgren hire. But if we're now using the Parcells czar as a model, he should be given free latitude to retain or, alternatively, bring in a coach he thinks he can work with. Similarly, we should hope that he brings in a personnel man who can insure our draft record improves,

- Alo

 

Very good points!

 

IMO, the difference between Parcells taking over 1-15 vrs Holmgren taking over this team is in the response the Head Coach is getting from his players as the season went from halfway point toward the end. There's improvement, momentum, a winning streak and we even beat Pittsburgh for the first time in the last 13 tries. Not only that, but we did all this after some key players were injured and/or traded even in spite of some shakey QBing. If the 2nd half of the season went like the first half of the season - I think Holmgren would arrive at the same no-brainer Parcells arrived with changing Head Coaches. Alo, I'm actually enjoying what I'm seeing from this team.

 

Do you want to know what has never waivered this year? Discipline in the form of how infrequently we're penalized. It's so much better than recent years where it felt like it was always either first 1st and 15 or 1st and 20. Not only that but I don't think I've ever seen out punt teams pinning opponents inside their 10 yard line as much as I have seen this year. We've done that most recently without Dave Zastudil. If that's not enough, our return game is second to none.

 

I can't even begin to tell you HOW MUCH a young player like Rubin has improved from last year to this year. He used to stand straight up at the snap and lose position. NOW he's playing with great leverage and doing a nice job on the nose. That's coaching. How about backups stepping or guys playing new positions while we don't see any dropoff?

 

I've been impressed at what Mangini has done with the deck he was dealt. It's easy to forget we only had 5 draft picks in 2008 and we were only slated for 4 draft picks in 2009. If you look at how many 2008 starters we have starting at this time on offense here you go:

1. Joe Thomas

2. Eric Steinbach

3. Lawrence Vickers

 

If we look at 2008 starts on defense starting now - here you be:

1. Wimbley

2. Williams

3. Wright

4. McDonald

 

Out of 22 starters from 2008, there's only a continuity sum of 7 remaining today. Just when you think it couldn't get even more bizaare, our starting place kicker and punter were/are out for extended periods.

 

Speaking of good scouts, I'm looking forward to reading all your goodies about the top prospects from now until the draft. You spoiled us last year with countless video clips and informative articles. There won't be a shortage of things to talk about now that we're already into the Bowl Season.

 

- Tom F.

 

 

[Chip Banks]

A year ago, we were talking about how the Savage-Crennel experiment failed because there was a disconnect between the players brought in and the ones desired by the head coach.

 

* * *

 

It seems like we're unlearning the lessons of 2005-2008. And I'm not sure we should expect Holmgren to wipe clean his memory bank as well: he's already said that the existence of factions in Seattle - people who were already there before him vs. people he brought in - affected the quality of his 1999 draft class.

 

I'm not sure he'll want to repeat that by having his OC calling for WCO playmakers, while Mangini is screaming that a certain player is a perfect fit for a defensive scheme Holmgren isn't intimately familiar with. Absent some luck, which the Browns haven't had much of as of late, that seems like a recipe for disaster.

 

First, there was no disconnect. Opie knew exactly what defense Romeo ran and wanted to run. The talent in Baltimore was in the scouting department and at the top of the organization in Ozzie. Opie and Koki prove that. Opie was middle management. He color-coded charts, assigned scouts to regions and checked their expense reports, and came up with famed draft strategies like how they could pull off a trade up for Boller.

 

We're going to have a display of Opie's rank incompetence this weekend as two bottom feeder teams try to win with bottom-of-the-barrel quarterbacking talent that he introduced to the league. Here is the back story: The guy Opie traded 1st and 2nd round picks for will be in crutches after contributing to back-to-back wins by turning in back-to-back sub 100 yard passing performances. A guy that Opie gave up the top third round pick for will be playing for the opponent only because the guy that Savage REALLY wanted when he gave up the farm to get Quinn (Russell -- they got Boller, BTW as an afterthought to Leftwich) has been an epic failure, a sixth rounder who despite his NFL record year of failure is hands-down Opie's most successful QB draft pick to date (compare Chris Redman -- third round pick running a close second) will get his second chance with the Browns and might just do worse than the 160 yards and two interceptions that Quinn has contributed in the two game streak. A guy whom Opie gave up a fourth rounder to acquire will be sitting in the booth before the game telling us why all these guys suck (Dilfer). And somewhere out there watching the game and struggling to muster the arm strength to pass the cranberry sauce will be Ken Dorsey, who helped coach Anderson and Quinn up to the point that they are at now. Thanks Ken. That roster spot was well-deserved.

 

That's an entire draft class -- 1,2,3,4, and 7 round picks on the quarterbacking abortion that has been the staple of Browns football. Oh, and now that it looks like we might be going to a WCO, remember that Opie cut a QB (Garcia) who went a pro bowl and saved a season for the Eagles with a deep playoff run . . . a guy that was basically a 90 plus passer rating guy after he left when in a WCO. We also had Bryant, Winslow and Faine, which wouldn't have been a terrible WCO nucleus. But I digress.

 

On the defense . . . a defense were EVERYONE knew we were running a 3-4 from the get go, Savage managed to draft one and only one very average NFL linebacker -- D. Jackson. He traded down from Ngata to get Cam Wimbley, ultimately creating the hole (after screwing up the salary cap by overpaying dinosaurs like Jason Fist and Ted Washington) that made us give up a draft choice and Bodden to get Rogers. WIth this weakened secondary, he left the Browns coaches to attempt tget by with what almost unquestionably is the worst secondary in the NFL, having blown countless picks on too-small corner/kick returners from Oklahoma. He gave away Chris Crocker for nothing and used a pick every bit as high as the Robiskie pick to replace him with Brodney Pool.

 

Why did Opie DRAFT guys like Perkins (with people like Chris Canty and Brandon Jacons on the board) if he knew Cribbs could replace Northcutt as a kick returner? Why did Opie use late round picks on guys like Speegel, Dunn and McMillan and risk someone picking Cribbs as Mr. Irrelevant? Why did Opie offer Cribbs only a $2,500 signing bonus as a UFA? Because he invited a bunch of Akron and Kent state player to training camp that year (along with area QB Charlie Frye and Josh Harris) to create some interest at training camp. Cribbs was luck. Bravo, but luck. Honestly, if Harrison would have taken the initiative to become a kick returner, Cribbs probably doesn't even make the team.

 

Opie drafted guys like M. Purcell with obvious 4-3 bodies who had no chance of fitting into the defense he knew Romeo was running. It's called incompetence, not disconnect.

 

And his biggest blunders were in free agency. OPIE killed this team's chances to compete this year by putting the team in a salary cap bind and trading away a large portion of the draft to move up to get Rucker (Eagles practice squad) and Beau Bell (not in football). Nobody in the media even acknowledges this. It's like dropping the Christmas ham and then sweeping the whole damn thing under the rug. You'd have to try not to notice it.

 

To recap -- five years of Opie's drafts produced 1 and only one NFL offensive lineman -- and that was a #3 overall pick (Thomas).

 

Five years of drafting for the 3-4 produced 1 and only one NFL average linebacker -- D. Jackson. Some might count Wimbley, but he is still terrible against the run and really is not that effective of a pass rusher. He's a specialist at best. Compare Trent Cole who was a second day pick.

 

Five years of drafting corner after corner has yielded one NFL average cornerback -- Eric Wright. A guy who would be in the nickel for several teams, IMO. That cost the Browns two picks.

 

Five years of NFL drafts yielded one NFL average WR who was a bigger headache than he was worth and drew/draws a salary that is way out of line with his production (Edwards).

 

Five years of NFL drafts got us one rotational defensive lineman for a 3-4 defense (Rubin)

 

Five years of NFL drafts got us one slightly below average safety (Pool).

 

Point me to the productive guys around the league that he drafted and Mangini cast off.

 

All that said, you are probably right on the disconnect in coaching philosophies. Eleven picks is too many to spend on schemes to which you have no long-term commitment.

 

Holmgren is a square peg to Mangini's round hole. The Xs and Os and the philosophies behind them are likely too dissimilar to co-exist. Not Mangini's ego as the press has been trying to spin this. Mangini will not resign. He has a family and $12 million coming to him if he is canned.

 

The ironic part is that I think if either Holmgren or Mangini would have come in with a complementary GM at the time Savage got the job, this thing would be fixed.

 

Remember the Savage hire was heralded by the media. Guys like Chris Mortenson STILL defend Savage. They whipped the lemming fan base up into a frenzy when John Collins rightfully had Opie's job on the line for mismanaging the salary cap and Savage was given two more years to decimate the team's chances to be competitive.

 

Hopefully Holmgren will have the conviction, clout and talent to stick around long enough to make this work.

[Flugel]

First, there was no disconnect. Opie knew exactly what defense Romeo ran and wanted to run. The talent in Baltimore was in the scouting department and at the top of the organization in Ozzie. Opie and Koki prove that. Opie was middle management. He color-coded charts, assigned scouts to regions and checked their expense reports, and came up with famed draft strategies like how they could pull off a trade up for Boller.

 

We're going to have a display of Opie's rank incompetence this weekend as two bottom feeder teams try to win with bottom-of-the-barrel quarterbacking talent that he introduced to the league. Here is the back story: The guy Opie traded 1st and 2nd round picks for will be in crutches after contributing to back-to-back wins by turning in back-to-back sub 100 yard passing performances. A guy that Opie gave up the top third round pick for will be playing for the opponent only because the guy that Savage REALLY wanted when he gave up the farm to get Quinn (Russell -- they got Boller, BTW as an afterthought to Leftwich) has been an epic failure, a sixth rounder who despite his NFL record year of failure is hands-down Opie's most successful QB draft pick to date (compare Chris Redman -- third round pick running a close second). A guy whom Opie gave up a fourth rounder to acquire will be sitting in the booth before the game telling us why all these guys suck (Dilfer). And somewhere out there watching the game and struggling to muster the arm strength to pass the cranberry sauce will be Ken Dorsey, who helped coach Anderson and Quinn up to the point that they are at now.

 

That's an entire draft class -- 1,2,3,4, and 7 round picks on the quarterbacking abortion that has been the staple of Browns football. Oh, and now that it looks like we might be going to a WCO, remember that Opie cut a QB (Garcia) that went a pro bowl and saved a season for the Eagles with a deep playoff run . . . a guy that was basically a 90 plus passer rating guy after he left when in the right system.

 

On the defense . . . a defense were EVERYONE knew we were running a 3-4 from the get go, Savage managed to draft one and only one very average NFL linebacker -- D. Jackson. He traded down from Ngata to get Cam Wimbley, ultimately creating the hole (after screwing up the salary cap by overpaying dinosaurs like Jason Fist and Ted Washington) that made us give up a draft choice and Bodden to get Rogers. WIth this weakened secondary he left almost unquestionably the worst secondary in the NFL and blew countless picks on too-small corner/kick returners from Oklahoma. He gave away Chris Crocker for nothing and used a pick every bit as high as the Robiskie pick to replace him with Brodney Pool. Why did he DRAFT guys like Perkins (with people like Chris Canty and Brandon Jacons on the board) if he knew Cribbs could replace Northcutt as a kick returner? Why did Opie use late round picks on guys like Speegel, Dunn and McMillan and risk someone picking Cribbs as Mr. Irrelevant? Why did Opie offer Cribbs only a $2,500 signing bonus as a UFA? Because he invited a bunch of Akron and Kent state player to training camp that year (along with area QB Charlie Frye and Josh Harris) to create some interest at training camp. Cribbs was luck.

 

Opie drafted guys like M. Purcell with obvious 4-3 bodies who had no chance of fitting into the defense he knew Romeo was running. It's called incompetence, not disconnect.

 

And his biggest blunders were in free agency. OPIE killed this team's chances to compete this year by putting the team in a salary cap bind and trading away a large portion of the draft to move up to get Rucker (Eagles practice squad) and Beau Bell (not in football).

 

To recap -- five years of drafts have produced 1 and only one NFL offensive lineman -- and that was a #3 overall pick (Thomas).

 

Five years of drafting for the 3-4 has produced 1 and only one NFL average linebacker -- D. Jackson. Some might count Wimbley, but he is still terrible against the run and really is not that effective of a pass rusher. He's a specialist at best.

 

Five years of drafting corner after corner has yielded one NFL average cornerback -- Eric Wright. A guy who would be in the nickel for several teams, IMO. That cost the Browns two picks.

 

Five years of NFL drafts yielded one NFL average WR who was a bigger headache than he was worth and drew/draws a salary that is way out of line with his production (Edwards).

 

Five years of NFL drafts got us one rotational defensive lineman for a 3-4 defense (Rubin)

 

Five years of NFL drafts got us one slightly below average safety (Pool).

 

Point me to the productive guys around the league that he drafted and Mangini cast off.

 

All that said, you are probably right on the disconnect in coaching philosophies. Eleven picks is too many to spend on schemes to which you have no long-term commitment.

 

Holmgren is a square peg to Mangini's round hole. The Xs and Os and the philosophies behind them are likely too dissimilar to co-exist. Not Mangini's ego as the press has been trying to spin this. Mangini will not resign. He has a family and $12 million coming to him if he is canned.

 

That's a CLASSIC Mr Banks!!! Thanks for the gem! That screen name reminds me of when we had LBers that could justify a 3-4 defense. Maybe we were just freakin spoiled in the 80s.

 

BTW, before getting hurt Chris Crocker was a hero in Cincy. Looks like they've missed him quite a bit in recent weeks.

 

The worst part of Opie was giving up an entire day 1 of a draft in 2008 that only brought us 5 draft picks with only 1 keeper in Rubin. Considering the best teams in our division were getting double digit volumes of draft picks while Opie increased the length of his commitment to Jamal Lewis (whom Ozzie already deemed as dead wheels after waiting 3 years for the old Jamal to return). Jamal surprised alot of people with decent season in 2007 so he got a contract extension; and then returned right back to the Jamal Baltimore was more than happy to let go. Atrocious planning IMO. A personel guru has to understand wear and tear in relation to HOW long to commit to a guy deemed stop-gap.

 

And how did Savage followup our emaciated draft volume of 2008? By leaving us only 4 draft picks for 2009, which would mark a second consecutive season that the best teams in our division were getting double digit draft volumes and Cincy was tripling our volume. The end result was inevitable folks.

 

If that's not enough - Mangini had ZERO to do with Winslow wanting out. Savage was 100% of the reason that guy wanted out of Cleveland and by the time Winslow saw were were heading for the 3rd regime change since his arrival - WHO in the right mind could blame him? I know alot of people that weren't in the right frame of mind were blaming mangini for the situation he inherited. Was there another Head Coach on the planet that wanted to come to Cleveland for the 2009 season?

 

To witness what we've watched for the last 3-4 weeks in terms of improvement in the absence of the countless injured - REALLY says alot about Mangini's ability to problem solve. And even better, he's got the mental toughness to overcome his mistakes. The biggest mistake I saw was the reluctance to play Harrison in lieu of a pussyfootin fossil with big arms.

- Tom F.

[Chip Banks]

If that's not enough - Mangini had ZERO to do with Winslow wanting out. Savage was 100% of the reason that guy wanted out of Cleveland and by the time Winslow saw were were heading for the 3rd regime change since his arrival - WHO in the right mind could blame him?

- Tom F.

 

Great point. Anyone who heard Opie's completely unprofessional rant and near personal attack on Winslow that he made on a morning radio talk show during Staphgate would know that he didn't have the maturity to hold office in a middle school student council. That was honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've ever heard.

[kshutchins]

Holmgren is a square peg to Mangini's round hole. The Xs and Os and the philosophies behind them are likely too dissimilar to co-exist.

 

And you base this on what? I'm not disagreeing with you here; I really want to know why you say that. What makes you sure they can't work together? What is different about their philosophies? Please articulate them for me.

 

[Alo]

First, there was no disconnect. Opie knew exactly what defense Romeo ran and wanted to run.

I think it's clear that there was. You mentioned the d-line: in my view, Savage was drafting players who fit the Ravens' 3-4 d-line mold: sure, they have Ngata playing end, but they also have more athletic guys like Trevor Pryce and possibly Paul Kruger (there's speculation that he'll eventually bulk up and play there) at the position. Guys like Mel Purcell and Chase Pittman were more in that mold, and perhaps the type of player that a Head Coach Todd Grantham would have wanted.

 

In the reverse direction, look at how Kenyon Coleman became expendable when Rex Ryan came in and brought in a smaller, more athletic 3-4 end in Marques Douglas. Though the differences might not be insurmountable, there clearly is a difference between the type of defense Savage helped build in Baltimore and the one Crennel wanted.

 

When Savage tried to bridge the divide, bringing in a fat guy who's also got some Baltimore-esque athleticism, we ended up with Corey Williams, who's mostly been a disappointment and not a good fit at 3-4 end. It's not surprising that a guy brought in to be a fit for two systems ended up fitting neither - the same problem we'd be risking with a Holmgren-Mangini pairing.

 

Re: your anti-Opie tirade, I agree with some of your points. But even though I think it was a huge mistake on Savage's part to pass on Ngata, it's unfair to say D'Qwell is the only average or better linebacker Savage brought in. Kam Wimbley's a pretty good player; his decline under Crennel is just another example of how the Savage-Crennel combo wasn't working.

[Alo]

I can't even begin to tell you HOW MUCH a young player like Rubin has improved from last year to this year. He used to stand straight up at the snap and lose position. NOW he's playing with great leverage and doing a nice job on the nose. That's coaching. How about backups stepping or guys playing new positions while we don't see any dropoff?

As you may recall, we disagreed in our evaluations of how Rubin played last year. Though I agree that he's improved this year, I think we saw growth last year as well. Towards the end of the year, Romeo had him playing both at nose and right end because the guy is so strong and plays hard.

 

Though the coaching staff deserves credit for the Rubin's development and the revitalization of Wimbley, you've also seen some of our less read&react-ish guys fall by the wayside. I know you weren't much of an Alex Hall fan, but I could see him being a contributor in an attacking 3-4 like Baltimore's; under Mangini, he's not even active every week. We've also got the curious situation where Veikune and Francies aren't seeing the field.

 

And it seemed like some of our better young contributors only got on the field because the veterans ahead of them got hurt. That's a troubling sign.

[DawgTracker]

This is hilarious with all the sudden Mangini love. The guy beat the Steelers once and he's the hero of Cleveland. All this talk about "progress" is hilarious. I recall RAC making huge progress with the 2007 Browns...

 

Sorry to say, but I thought Browns fans were smarter than this. You guys are the football center of the United States and a class A town. To be satisfied with Mangini is to be satisfied with mediocrity at best. Cleveland deserves better, IMO.

 

Nobody has said they are satisfied with what Mangini has produced so far. But, this team is more disciplined and playing better than previously. The roster has quite a few decent players on it but very few studs. Give him more studs and I think this team will beat some people up, year after year

[JoeSixPat]

Great point. Anyone who heard Opie's completely unprofessional rant and near personal attack on Winslow that he made on a morning radio talk show during Staphgate would know that he didn't have the maturity to hold office in a middle school student council. That was honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've ever heard.

 

I can't imagine Holmgren will take issue with Mangini's moves to get rid of Winslow or Edwards. Even with such talented players coaches and fans alike recognize that some guys are distractions at best and cancers at worst and need to go.

 

Perhaps a more savvy Coach/GM would have covered up the discontent to maximize trade value but I think everyone in the NFL knew the Browns were not in a position of power when it came to getting maximum value for these guys.

 

I do think Holmgren will be looking at how Mangini has conducted himself in general from Day One and will be asking himself tough questions about whether Holmgren wants to put his reputation in Mangini's hands. Would Holmgren be proud of the handling of the Mural issue if it happened on his watch (and why can no one seem to find the "new more visible location" of the mural today?) Would Holmgren be proud of the way Mangini got off on the wrong foot with a key player like Shaun Rogers? The handling of Bus-Gate? The handling of marathon practices? The way the former PR Intern has handled the media? Would Holmgren think that bodes well for him placing his trust and reputation in Mangini's hands?

 

And that's before even considering if Mangini is the right coach to implement Holmgren's West Coast offense and need for a strong defense (that needs to limit a team like the Chiefs to less than 34 points)

 

I predict a new head coach once the season is over. I predict it will be a head coach with experience in the WC Offense because Holmgren views that as a key foundation for success - a WC Offensive Coordinator alone will not be good enough for Holmgren.

 

He's already set the stage for this move by stating that the tough but right choices are not always fair, invoking Parcells successful strategy of parting ways with a head coach after just one season.

[Earl34]

I can't imagine Holmgren will take issue with Mangini's moves to get rid of Winslow or Edwards. Even with such talented players coaches and fans alike recognize that some guys are distractions at best and cancers at worst and need to go.

 

Perhaps a more savvy Coach/GM would have covered up the discontent to maximize trade value but I think everyone in the NFL knew the Browns were not in a position of power when it came to getting maximum value for these guys.

 

I do think Holmgren will be looking at how Mangini has conducted himself in general from Day One and will be asking himself tough questions about whether Holmgren wants to put his reputation in Mangini's hands. Would Holmgren be proud of the handling of the Mural issue if it happened on his watch (and why can no one seem to find the "new more visible location" of the mural today?) Would Holmgren be proud of the way Mangini got off on the wrong foot with a key player like Shaun Rogers? The handling of Bus-Gate? The handling of marathon practices? The way the former PR Intern has handled the media? Would Holmgren think that bodes well for him placing his trust and reputation in Mangini's hands?

 

And that's before even considering if Mangini is the right coach to implement Holmgren's West Coast offense and need for a strong defense (that needs to limit a team like the Chiefs to less than 34 points)

 

I predict a new head coach once the season is over. I predict it will be a head coach with experience in the WC Offense because Holmgren views that as a key foundation for success - a WC Offensive Coordinator alone will not be good enough for Holmgren.

 

He's already set the stage for this move by stating that the tough but right choices are not always fair, invoking Parcells successful strategy of parting ways with a head coach after just one season.

 

I don't see how Mike Holmgren's reputation is tied in to how Eric Mangini behaves. They're separate people and their reputation is more likely determined by how they conduct themselves in light of the other's behavior.

 

Your issues with Mangini are tired as is your anti-Mangini agenda. Shaun Rogers bought into Eric Mangini's program. The coach made that happen. Marathon practices? No more so than any other coach and that comes from multiple sources. The former PR intern has handled the media the same as the Pats do. I don't see you crying about them.

 

[Chip Banks]

And you base this on what? I'm not disagreeing with you here; I really want to know why you say that. What makes you sure they can't work together? What is different about their philosophies? Please articulate them for me.

 

Holmgren is a Walsh disciple -- a WCO guy. He believes in the WCO. And he is an offensive-minded coach.

 

Mangini is from the Parcells Belichick tree of coaching. To a man, they believe in the Erhardt-Perkins offensive system. Mangini is a defensive minded coach who is most cut out of the Belichick mold. Whatever tension there is between them now, it's obvious to anyone that Mangini is still trying to emulate Belichick.

 

The traditional Erhardt-Perkins offensive system wants a smash mouth running game. Pittsburgh and New England now run an "Air Erhardt" style offense, with a heavier pass to run balance. That actually incorporates some WCO and some Air Coryell principles. Erhardt-Perkins is a more malliable offense, so you see a blending to fit the strengths of QBs like Rothlisberger and Brady. Looking at what Mangini was building in NY, he seems to favor the traditional Parcells Erhardt-Perkins "run to win" offense. Power blocking schemes. More like the traditional Steelers teams and the early Weis/Brady/Bledsoe Pats. This is a dream of most defensive-minded coaches.

 

A pure WCO is much more scheme-oriented. Short passes replace runs. The QB moves on designed roll outs and boot legs and you need quicker, more athletic offensive linemen. It is a quintesentially horizontal offense.

 

At the heart of their philosophies, the WCO of Holmgren/Reid and the base Erhardt-Perkins run to win offense (which we've leaned more heavily on with each passing week as Carl Smith has had an influence on the game planning) are near opposites.

 

Parcells, the father of the Belichick tree, was one of the most critical of the WCO.

 

The Holmgren tree is full of offensive-minded coaches. Parcells/Belichick defensive.

 

I'm not saying that Mangini and Holmgren can't co-exist. In some world it's possible that they could. But Mangini is not the optimal steward of a WCO/4-3 team and if Holmgren has the Browns continue course under Mangini, he'll be overseeing philosophies that, at their core, he does not believe in. That's just a tough fit. And with 11 draft choices and a year in which the Browns should be positioned for free agency, it seems to me that we have to chose a philosophy now. A wait-and-see approach will completely nullify the timing of Holmgren's hire. Hiring someone who believes in the Parcells way at the top of the organization would have seemed to fit better with Mangini going forward.

 

The Weis rumor is really interesting, though. It would mean that Holmgren is leaning toward a continuation of the philosophies that Mangini started. If that's the case, he has to stick to his guns come hell or high water -- like a 5-11 season in 2010. That's a tough investment of trust for a guy that you didn't choose and philosophies that you don't necessarily ascribe to if you are Holmgren.

 

We'll know best in about 3 weeks.

[Kosar_For_President]

Wait a minute, I just woke up from drinking till 4 am. We hired Holmgren?

[Riffer X]

This is the best thread the board has had in a long time, thanks a bunch for all the great observations and opinions.

 

I'm a Mangie guy, I liked him when we hired him and thought he got the shaft in NY given the success he had there and Favre's injury blemishing last season's fast start. I also liked the fact he admitted to learning a ton there from his first season. That is huge to me. For one, it shows some humility that most people think he lacks and two, it bypasses the Belichick dilemma. There were guys like me (not many) who saw the brilliance in BB but couldn't stand a lot of his issues---ie crapping on and lying to vets and the total dbag treatment to fans, media and even some within the organization. Modell gave him total autonomy and he and his ego ran with it because he wasn't ready, sorta like Savage. Hell, I still don't think Belichick is all he's cracked up to be and he may be running his course in NE before too long. Vets tend to get sick of his act after awhile.

 

I don't see Mangie as this way. What I see is a guy that obviously knows the game and what it takes to win. He's a steadfast student of the game and has firm beliefs in the style, culture and type of player he wants (see Matt Roth and the former Jets). He is a system guy that knows it takes a few playmakers to win consistently, however, he also knows that depth and player compatibility within the system is most important. The discipline he has instituted cannot be overlooked, and most of that correlates directly to his type of players and coaching. He wants guys that have character and brains first and foremost, because those types tend to buy into a system and have accountability. He also does not play favorites, as evidenced by his tough treatment of Robo and Veikune among others.

 

He has made mistakes to be sure, but the sum of the product that we began with from Camp RAC 'n ROLLS--PHILLIP is already vastly different. There is no way this team in the current situation would be playing at the level they are now and giving the same effort under Grimace. The reason for this is these guys respect what is going on and know their jobs are on the line week in and week out, which totally dismisses all the media bias toward Mangie. I think the guy is much more of a player's coach than people think, but the player needs to be more Alex Mack than Braylon Edwards if you get my drift.

 

I thought it was stupid for how he trusted Jax to not snag Don Carey, how he stuck with Lewis out of blind loyalty, messed around with Quinn and allowed Deyballs to call HS wing T type play calling for much of the season. I do however, believe there was a method to his madness and he did this figuring on having the time needed to gut this and do it the right way by instilling a whole new attitude and philosophy. Perfect example is how he ran camp. Sure, BQ should have been named the starter and got the reps, but people forget it wasn't just QB that he made compete. Everybody was competing, from Glue Hands Hubbard getting number one reps to Sexy Rexy playing all over the line along with the others. This camp was open competition and a direct example of the players being told the way it was. Mangie did this full well knowing there would be no continuity for a big part of the season but it was more important to establish an identity and culture of what he and his coaches expected. Make no mistake, the players have bought in and not just because they have to, he has sold them.

 

People keep trying to figure out why Robo was getting snubbed and can't find a reason. It could be his three drop camp day and subsequent relegation to special teams where he didn't exactly tear it up, but I offer another solution: How about the fact Robo is a local kid he drafted probably higher than he should have and the kid came from spoiled coach kid pedigree. We all know the kid is smart and can play from watching him at OSU, but perhaps he was a perfect example of what will happen to you regardless of your stock. All this stuff ties together and I gotta believe some of this same type of thing is being used on Veikune and Hall. Don't think those guys can't play, not yet. All we have to do is look to Pitt over the years to see countless examples (including Roid Monk) of guys who needed to react before thinking.

 

Given time, I think Mangie and his system will work, hence I don't want him gone. But, the hiring of Homes just doesn't mesh with what is going on here. I like Homes as a football guy and he is a class act, but the compatibility factor is huge here. It reeks of another mistake by Lerner but that is without knowing what Homes and his ultimate goals/actions will be. Perhaps there is an agreement in place that he will be more of an administrator type than hands on football guy instituting his own systems and player profiles. If that is the case, I gotta believe Mangie stays without the Napoleon complex. I think they can coexist but there still has to be a common and overlying philosophy that both feel comfortable with. Mangie has already done the hard foundation part, and if we go changing that all out again it's going to be even uglier IMO.

 

First off, we are seeing a semblance of some power football as an identity and now we're talking about the WCO here? You may as well start totally from scratch. One thing I do know for a fact is that anybody who comes in is going to clean house, it's just how these guys role--any of them. They will take a player that is slightly less in talent and productivity just because it's their guy based on perceived potential. I don't want to go through this again.

 

I don't know how this is going to pan out but letting Mangie go just seems to me like a major step backwards and once again being the wrong decision from ownership on down. I'm kind of excited about this team right now and the prospects for the future. I think there could be a huge turnaround next year, albeit I do believe Mangie needs reined in somewhat. It should not be the head coach's job to determine wallpaper, media statement policies and uniform sequences among other things. He should continue handling his staff, the players and the scheming while working together with a solid draft guru that agrees in principle with the ultimate goal and player philosophies. I have serious doubts this will happen but here's to hoping........

[Sony Reed]

A year ago, we were talking about how the Savage-Crennel experiment failed because there was a disconnect between the players brought in and the ones desired by the head coach.

 

Now, people here think it'd be desirable to have Holmgren and/or his chosen GM drafting 3-4 personnel for Mangini, something they've likely got little experience doing. Similarly, Mangini would be asked to oversee a WCO or, like Crennel, give up all of his authority on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Do we really want to go back to the Crennel-Savage situation? Are you all confident that Mangini and Holmgren both are great & magnanimous football guys, to the point that they can make a management structure that screwed up the previous regime work?

 

It seems like we're unlearning the lessons of 2005-2008. And I'm not sure we should expect Holmgren to wipe clean his memory bank as well: he's already said that the existence of factions in Seattle - people who were already there before him vs. people he brought in - affected the quality of his 1999 draft class.

 

I'm not sure he'll want to repeat that by having his OC calling for WCO playmakers, while Mangini is screaming that a certain player is a perfect fit for a defensive scheme Holmgren isn't intimately familiar with. Absent some luck, which the Browns haven't had much of as of late, that seems like a recipe for disaster.

 

Alo, I agree 100% what you are saying, what I don't understand is people talking about keeping Mangini as though they forgot the first 12 games of the season when we did not look like a NFL team on offense, then we beat the Steelers in terrible conditions and a terrible Chiefs team and now we should give Mangini another season I just don't get. I seem to think with the pressure off to win its alot easier to win past 2 games and also we beat a Steelers team that lost to the Chiefs, Raiders and Bears...this is not a good Steeler team and a Chiefs team we needed 2 Cribbs returns for TD's or we lose.

 

You make a great point about Holmgren and Mangini being totally different, if you wanted things to remain the same with Mangini, then why hire Holmgren?

 

I would like to see Holmgren clean house with everything associated with the losing culture and bring in his own people and finally we will have a offense to be excited about since Chuds 1 good year.

 

How is Holmgren going to be able to get players for a guy like Mangini who does not run a WCO or 4-3 defense both things that Holmgren is most experienced with. I just don't see the 2 working together as a good match

 

[Sony Reed]

Very good points!

 

IMO, the difference between Parcells taking over 1-15 vrs Holmgren taking over this team is in the response the Head Coach is getting from his players as the season went from halfway point toward the end. There's improvement, momentum, a winning streak and we even beat Pittsburgh for the first time in the last 13 tries. Not only that, but we did all this after some key players were injured and/or traded even in spite of some shakey QBing. If the 2nd half of the season went like the first half of the season - I think Holmgren would arrive at the same no-brainer Parcells arrived with changing Head Coaches. Alo, I'm actually enjoying what I'm seeing from this team.

 

Do you want to know what has never waivered this year? Discipline in the form of how infrequently we're penalized. It's so much better than recent years where it felt like it was always either first 1st and 15 or 1st and 20. Not only that but I don't think I've ever seen out punt teams pinning opponents inside their 10 yard line as much as I have seen this year. We've done that most recently without Dave Zastudil. If that's not enough, our return game is second to none.

 

I can't even begin to tell you HOW MUCH a young player like Rubin has improved from last year to this year. He used to stand straight up at the snap and lose position. NOW he's playing with great leverage and doing a nice job on the nose. That's coaching. How about backups stepping or guys playing new positions while we don't see any dropoff?

 

I've been impressed at what Mangini has done with the deck he was dealt. It's easy to forget we only had 5 draft picks in 2008 and we were only slated for 4 draft picks in 2009. If you look at how many 2008 starters we have starting at this time on offense here you go:

1. Joe Thomas

2. Eric Steinbach

3. Lawrence Vickers

 

If we look at 2008 starts on defense starting now - here you be:

1. Wimbley

2. Williams

3. Wright

4. McDonald

 

Out of 22 starters from 2008, there's only a continuity sum of 7 remaining today. Just when you think it couldn't get even more bizaare, our starting place kicker and punter were/are out for extended periods.

 

Speaking of good scouts, I'm looking forward to reading all your goodies about the top prospects from now until the draft. You spoiled us last year with countless video clips and informative articles. There won't be a shortage of things to talk about now that we're already into the Bowl Season.

 

- Tom F.

 

Flugels, Here is where I disagree with you, You say you like the way the team is playing for Mangini, did you ever think that some of these guys are playing for jobs next year with the Browns and for other NFL teams to get a look at them

 

There is no pressure on this team to win we have been out of the playoff picture so long ago its much easier to play/win when there is no pressure to win

 

You speak of Mangini and the draft choices he got us, Tom our draft STUNK, we traded out of the #5 spot bypassed numerous playmakers such as Harvin, Maclin, Clay Mathews ect who could have helped this year while we selected a Center, I don't think you ever select a center in the 1st round, Veikune has not got on the field, Robiske has been a BUST he has done nothing, looking at the draft Tom what did we get that makes you so excited? MoMass and Mack?

 

Tom there were guys late in the season who only saw the field because of injuries, Moore the tight end only was promoted from the practice squad because of injuries, same with Bernard and a few other players, otherwise we would have seen more of tiptoe Jamal at running back, and Royal at tight end, Mangini never gave these young guys a chance because he wanted to, he only played them because of injuries

 

You talk of the 11 draft picks this year, most of the 11 draft choices are 5th and 6th round picks, so how many contributions do you really expect us to get? you seem to think Mangini got us all these extra picks where we can net top prospects whereas we got a bunch of 5th and 6th round picks.

 

On defense we still can't stop the run, we still can't stop the pass

 

People say I don't want to tear it down and start over again....Tell me what are we tearing down and starting over?

 

Do you call wins agains a bad Steeler team, and wins against the Chiefs and maybe a bad Raider team and that win against the Bills progress by Mangini or has he likes to sell people its a process have you forgot its a 16 game season and for the first 12 games we STUNK and tell me what team have we defeated with a winning record?

 

Do you realize our starting QB (Quinn) until he was injured has won 2 NFL games as a starter and not throw for over 100 yards in each of his 2 victories

 

Lets hope Holmgren comes and builds this team the correct way because we don't have anything to tear down and start over.