While We’re Waiting… No White House for Delonte, No Right-handed Help for the Tribe
January 9, 2012Irving: Portland’s Fast Break Points Were My Fault
January 9, 2012Last week things got testy here on WFNY yet again when I brought up that I was tired of hearing the argument that detractors use to say Mike Holmgren is a hypocrite for firing Mangini for not winning enough. I just wrote a small paragraph on it in a ranting fashion, and I don’t think it might have made the point, and possibly even came off a little antagonistic. So, I thought I would research it properly to really present the case that Mangini wasn’t fired for wins alone.
In case you don’t know exactly what I’m talking about yet, the idea is that Eric Mangini won five games the season before he was fired and Mike Holmgren said, “…we did not win enough games this year” in the press conference announcing Mangini’s firing. Pat Shurmur only won four games, so it seems pretty simple that Holmgren was caught being inconsistent at best and a hypocrite at worst. “So what does Mike Holmgren have to say for himself now?” seems to be the battle cry of the loudest of his detractors.
It is true that Mike Holmgren said that the Browns didn’t win enough games, but nobody even remembers the sentence preceding that one.
After saying how hard it was to make the decision and how much he liked and respected Eric Mangini, Holmgren said the following (emphasis mine.)
“Unfortunately this business at times and even though it wasn’t the only factor, I want to win here. We want to win here in Cleveland and we did not win enough games this year.”
“… even though it wasn’t the only factor…” is kind of an important phrase leading up to the part about winning games. Honestly, I wouldn’t blame anyone for missing it either among the other 347 different questions trying to determine if Holmgren had fired Mangini to make way for his own return to the sidelines.
Even beyond this one question, Holmgren said a whole lot more in his news conference about the decision to fire Mangini and what he was looking for in a new coach. By proxy says something about why Mangini was let go.
On this one, Holmgren talks in circles a bit, but he let’s the cat out of the bag at the end, indicating that he would favor his own system. (Emphasis mine.)
(On if the next coach will have run more of a West Coast style system)- “No, I don’t think I can do that. In what I tried to do with Eric (Mangini) this year and we talked about it this morning. I said, ‘I wish I could have helped you out more,’ and we had one of those things where we were kind of talking to each other that way. If I hire a coach, I’m hiring a coach. He’s going to run what he runs, what he’s comfortable with, what he knows. Now will it be part of the consideration in the process? Absolutely, but I am not going to interfere that way as a president. I did not do it this year, I’m not going to do it next year and I’m not going to do it ever. That’s not fair. Is it a consideration in this process? I think it is though. Maybe not the ‘system’ exactly but certainly something that I think allows the quarterback in this case in one of our quarterbacks to be successful.”
While saying he is going to be “hands off” Holmgren says that his system will be a consideration. As we now know with Shurmur’s hiring, it was a massive consideration. So, do you think you can apply that to Mangini’s firing other than just not winning enough? Here’s more from Holmgren’s press conference.
(On if it would be easier if the next head coach ran a West Coast offense so he could give input and advice)- “Certainly it would be easier, yes. It would be easier, but again, I’m going to be real careful about that. I just don’t think it’s fair. I would try and put myself in his shoes in having somebody pop into my office all the time saying do this, do that and do that. I know how I would react and I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. To answer, it would be easier, yes.”
And yet again, Holmgren wants to make sure whoever he hires doesn’t end up being painted as a puppet of his. But again, we can all see that he had a massive preference for his own philosophies.
And if that isn’t enough, remember Mangini’s own comments to Terry Pluto from earlier this year about how it wouldn’t work because of the two different coaching trees. Nobody knows why Mangini was fired better than Mangini after working with Holmgren and then being fired by him.
In the end, none of this proves that the Browns are on their way to respectability, let alone the Superbowl. They are still a four-win team looking to get better. Holmgren has made plenty of mistakes. He blatantly said that he didn’t think it felt like the team was starting over. Clearly after watching this season with Pat Shurmur and staff, they were starting over in more respects than not. Holmgren back-tracked on that a this season’s press conference when he kept referring to this as “year one.” Whoops.
That doesn’t really jive with him saying he didn’t think the team was starting over when Mangini was fired. I don’t think it would have been a good idea on the heels of firing Mangini to be honest and say that we were starting over this season because part of his job is to sell tickets, but it certainly raises eyebrows at a minimum.
In the end it doesn’t matter a whole lot other than in our discussions here. I would never tell anyone to trust Holmgren blindly anyway. I would never try to tell anyone that he hasn’t made mistakes or that the Browns are 100% headed in the right direction. I also wouldn’t attempt to tell anyone that Shurmur is a good hire after the season we just watched. He dealt with adversity this season, but in the end the Browns didn’t win and even beyond that the offense (his specialty) was abysmal. We all know that the team and its head coach will have to improve by leaps and bounds next season to justify sticking around.
I just get really sick and tired of the one-line “gotcha” criticisms that hope to summarize the Browns. I would really like to move beyond that kind of stuff into more of the finer points of how this team can get better. It is so much simpler to create rules in your mind or summarize to such finite little talking points that you can take a black and white stance, but I find the Johnny Cochran rules-making strategies like “if the glove don’t fit you must acquit” to be pretty frustrating.
Ultimately an NFL team, between the front office, coaching staff and players on the roster is a much more complex equation at least in my viewpoint. Simple answers are great when they are legit, but rarely are things that simple and easy. If things were that simple and easy, this team would have righted itself already and we wouldn’t have such contentious arguments about them.
29 Comments
Oh boy Craig. You are opening Pandora’s Box with this one. Get ready for the arguing in 3..2..1
I’m sure Pat Shurmur wishes Holmgren would have helped him out too. It didn’t take 16 games to realize Shurmur was in over his head.
Let’s let this one die – preferably a quick death, not a long drawn-out gasping expiration.
Craig, just wanted to say that your Browns blogging stamina is beyond impressive. Since their last game you’ve posted about pre-Holms presser, presser, post-presser, patience, Return to Mangini, and maybe more I can’t remember.
I think I’m every bit the Browns crazy you are but man, we obsess non-stop when there’s no real news, worrying a sore like a neurotic dog that licks an ever larger hole in its fur, then starts nibbling at the scab. I’m getting sucked right in, reading everything, but secretly hoping for one of them famous Scott Moratoriums. Just to recharge before the wall-to-wall draft chat starts dominating in March.
Thanks, I think. BTW that was TD’s moratorium.
https://waitingfornextyear.com/2009/03/a-moratorium-call/
I think those that are pointing out the “inconsistent” nature of Mike’s statements are splitting hairs. Mangenius was in his third year and you can reasonably say the expectations were much higher.
2nd year, but I agree with the sentiment on expectations.
Second* year, first of all. And year one was spent burning whatever was left of Club Crennel to the ground.
The main point of contention here is that Holmgren willfully burned a year with Mangini at the helm, during that time the team showed vast improvement against the toughest schedule in the league, and was discarded at the end of the year despite showing said improvement.
Then the team had a talent/youth infusion through the draft, and got infinitely worse in every aspect of the game with his hand picked head coach.
The fact that Holmgren would be less than honest in order to sell tickets, and that it’s completely transparent that he was less than honest concerns me. I’m not sure why it wouldn’t concern anyone else.
Thanks for the correction. It’s Monday and my brain is still in weekend mode.
It’s been beat to death but, in my opinion, there were mitigating circumstances coming into this season far greater than any Mangini faced. I know that sounds like a defense of Shurmur but it isn’t meant to be. He hasn’t shown me much but, I am willing to give him requisite time to put things in place. I think saying Holmgren burned a year with Mangini is sort of painting a picture with broad strokes, I don’t know if Mike really wanted to get a feel for Mangini or if he was taking time to do an organizational review bottom to top. I just don’t think Mike sat back and said “Meh, I’ll just give him a year and ditch him, where’s my popcorn?”
What I would really like to know is why this is even being brought up anymore? Is it because people are still upset Mangini was let go or because they’re off the H&H wagon and are desperate to poke holes in everything that comes out of Holmgren’s mouth. My money is on the latter.
EDIT: Also, in fear of being labeled a Shurmur apologist, I will say that if this team finishes with five or less wins next year I don’t think I’ll be any less disappointed than I was with Mangini.
I always like reading your comments on these issues Craig, as they provide a nice juxtaposition to the negativity. Liked the article, well written.
I will say that we personally disagree somewhat on the whole coaching situation, but I much prefer an intelligent debate on the subject. This article seems likely to generate that.
Awesome!!!
This sums up exactly how I feel about the Shurmur situation…. I penned an article on bleacherreport.com days after he was hired and stated that he was absolutely the wrong choice for Cleveland, and I was lambasted by many.
Turns out, I was right. The guy is not someone who strikes me as a leader of men. He’s more the assistant to a leader of men….an OC to a HC if you will. And the reality is, the Browns took on his personality as the season wore on….passive and overwhelmed.
It’s sad really. Mike Holmgren proclaimed that he would conduct a “thorough coaching search” to find the right candidate. Well, interviewing 3 candidates (one of which was solely for Rooney compliance) isn’t exactly a search that had any depth or breadth…..
Holmgren had a chance to make a serious change in Cleveland. He had a chance to interview as many candidates as he could to find the right guy. Yet, 2 guys, both of whom are in the playoffs (John Fox and Jim Harbaugh) weren’t even contacted. And, say what you will about Denver (I live here) but the change at Dove Valley (broncos HQ) has been tangible. Fox has taken a 4-12 team and turned them into a playoff team with arguably as bad or worse talent than Cleveland started the year with.
Personally, what I am tired of hearing is the excuses of “it was a strike shortened season” or the classic, “everyone had to learn a new system”, or “Shurmur’s a rookie coach in a bad situation”……I’ve heard the last one so many times it makes me sick.
Shurmur, like ANY other NFL HC should be held accountable for what he puts out. This year, he put out a 4-12 team while running arguably the single most predictable offensive attack in the NFL. Somehow though, he got a ringing endorsement from Holmgren, which is beyond me.
At the end of the day, Mike Holmgren was hired to make the RIGHT decisions. Not the one that was easiest, which hiring Shurmur was easy….same philosophy, family friend, same agent….the list goes on. And therein lies the problem. If Holmgren cannot make the RIGHT decisions, why is he there?
I can almost guarantee, any former GM or current GM for that matter, probably wouldn’t have hired a guy like Pat Shurmur for the Browns job. And, they most certainly would have conducted a more thorough search…..
Waiting for next year? Yeah….for sure. And maybe, even longer than that at this rate.
I personally thought that Mangini never should have been fired as head coach. I don’t think that Mangini the executive would have worked out.
Holmgren’s only previous experience as an executive in Seattle was a disaster. Heckert played 2nd fiddle to Andy Reid when personnel decisions where at hand in Philadelphia. This is the first time either Holmgren or Heckert have ever hired a head coach. Bob Lamonte is representing everyone. Shurmur didn’t show the ability to adjust to any adversity he faced at all.
Am I being overly paranoid here? Maybe. But I don’t think it’s completely out of line to ask where this is going when it seems like this team regressed to the year 2000 over one offseason.
Shurmur may be the most unenthusiastic coach in the NFL, but I don’t get the same “huge jerk” feeling that I did from Mangini.
Shurmur had a better roster, a more stable QB situation, more job security, and a much weaker schedule in 2011 than Mangini had in 2010. I don’t know how you can say the 2010 expectations should have been “much higher.”
Anyway, everybody knows that the “philosophical differences” played a big role in Holmgren’s decision to fire Mangini and that it wasn’t just the Ws and Ls. The point is that if he’d been honest about it up front, we wouldn’t have wasted the 2010 season here. That’s why the “he didn’t win enough” quote is so damning; not as evidence that Shurmur has to go too because he “didn’t win enough” either, but rather in the way it underscores how flawed Holmgren’s approach was at the end of ’09, and also how dishonest he’s been in the points he chooses to emphasize with the press (presumably to cover up for the flawed approach).
The site looks great, btw. Three cheers for DISQUS, especially.
Did you see Grossi’s line this past weekend that the next OC will ALSO likely come from the Lamonte client list? Randy Lerner might want to start asking a few questions. The fox might be guarding the hen house.
Wait…are you suggesting nepotism? Caloo, callay…now get read for the conspiracy theorist titles.
I was indifferent on Mangini simply because I trusted Holmgren to do what he felt was right for the team. So far that decision hasn’t impressed but I believe him when he says it’s going to take time. We’ve not had anyone credible trying to shape the team from top to bottom since the return in ’99 so my trust in the people in place leads me to believe that despite the record and some sloppy play the organization as a whole is moving towards, at the very least, stability.
I know Holmgren did a less than stellar job as GM in Seattle but I think it’s telling that he took himself out of that role. Likewise, I think it’s telling that Shurmur is saying he needs an OC. I can’t discount the job Heckert has done drafting so far, he’s has a few misses but overall he’s gotten us starters we desperately needed.
I’m none too pleased with Holmgren’s tenure, especially considering I have some pretty credible information that the rumors of his mailing it in are true (e.g., he typically works something like 10 to 2, is frequently not even in town, and shirks community involvement that he dove into with zeal when he first got to town).
But, that aside, I will play the other side and say it’s important to remember: Holmgren (and Shurmur, Heckert, Mangini etc) are not lawyers or seasoned PR executives. True, it’s a big part of their jobs, but they are simply not trained to measure every word from every angle.
So, I agree in a sense. It’s unfair to cherrypick his comment about not winning enough games vis-a-vis the Mangini firing to call him a hypocrite after this debacle. But I will say this, taking his words about Mangini’s firing at face value (that other factors played in): if next season is anything other than a MARKED improvement over this year, and not just in the W/L column, then Shurmur has to be fired for the same reasons.
Mangini made some huge player relations mistakes and some questionable personnel choices (but who’s to say Holmgren wouldn’t have pulled rank and drafted Sanchez if he had been here?), but he could undoubtedly coach when it came right down to it. He was light years ahead of Shurmur in that department. I’m not sure what his ceiling was, maybe players would have eventually tuned him out, but one of Holmgren’s “other factors” could not have been lack of progress or improvement. Mangini’s tenure was marked by steady improvement from day one. We haven’t seen that with Shurmur’s yet. So if next year’s team fails to pass the eye test, then Shurmur’s gotta go.
I’m willing to give these guys another year to see some kind of improvement.
The only reason Shurmur hasn’t been fired is because it’s only his first year and to fire him now would be an admission of defeat for the Wise and Powerful Holmgren. That and the fact that he’s his buddie’s nephew and has the same agent as Holmgren and Heckert.
He’ll be gone soon. Just not soon enough.
frowns, I know I’m not going to change your view, I’ve read your stuff and you seem very committed to your belief and thats cool. That being said.
1. Having a better roster is dubious at best. If you can cite specific examples of whose better great, but they were thin after Mangini’s much needed cupboard cleaning and got younger this year, I have no idea how you can claim they are “better”, but please do.
2. The QB situation is more stable because last years ROOKIE who started a handful of games between being thrown in and being hurt returned with no offseason, no training camp, a new coach, philosphy and offensive verbage, had the same limited weapons, oh and he lost his pro-bowl guard, had two rookies and wad of cookie dough protecting 3/5s of him. Mangini’s Anderson/Quinn, and Delhomme, Wallace, McCoy look like 100 year oaks compared to what “stability” they had this year.
Finally if you listen to Holmgren over the time he’s been here he has been consistent. He may not say what “Cleveland Frowns” wants to hear but he has been consistent. Holmgren said he wanted to give the coach a chance to keep his job and he did that. Holmgren told Shurmur if “the right guy” wasn’t there to be OC this year than do it your self and wait for “the right guy”, he did that when he most likely couldn’t find a guy that blew him away enough to fire Mangini. Mind you I fully agree that I get frustrated at what seem to be wasted years, but he and Heckert are clearly on the same page as having a plan to build the team from the ground up. Should this have happened in ’99, ’00? Yes. Did it happen? No. Does it make it any less true that it is the best way to build a long term winner? No. Am I answering my own questions in the same irritating way Holmgren does? maybe
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if this team is going to get fixed it is going to take someone who can ignore the torch burning masses forming at the gates demanding that someone – anyone- be fired every time something happens that they don’t like. You put forth a short sighted, narrow minded view, and whats worse you don’t ever offer an alternative – that is to say, you never say what would have been the correct move or the move to correc tthe current situation. You are about 2 rants away from being too radical for morning drivetime sports talk radio.
You obviously don’t read very closely. Lordy, where to start?
“Having a better roster is dubious at best. If you can cite specific examples of whose better great.”
Give Mangini Taylor, Sheard and DQwell Jackson and you’re talking about a defense that’s twice as good as what he had to work with.
As for the offense, I really have no idea what you’re trying to say about the quarterbacks, but having to switch them only once after 12 games is better than having to switch them every 2-3 weeks, and a 2nd year QB is better than a rookie. Greg Little was better than any WR Mangini had. Pashos on the right offset the loss of Steinbach on the left, and a second year Lauvao is better than a rookie Lauvao. They obviously missed Hillis and Steinbach, but look at the additions in sum (offense and defense) and there’s no way you can’t call this a significantly better roster top to bottom.
“You never say what would have been the correct move ..”
Um, correct move #1) Randy Lerner doesn’t overreact by hiring Holmgren. Correct move #2) Holmgren doesn’t fire Mangini when he’s making obvious progress at an historically difficult job. Correct move #3) Once you do decide to fire Mangini, maybe try taking a peek outside of your homeboy Bob Lamonte’s client list to hire a head coach.
I actually say a lot about those things, and did so well in advance of each mistake happening. Anyway, if it all inspires your confidence in Lerner and Fifty Million Dollar Mike, that’s really great for you, but don’t talk to me about torch burners when I was the only one in town who wanted Mangini to stay by week 9 of 2009.
“You put forth a short sighted, narrow minded view, and whats worse you don’t ever offer an alternative.”
Um, wrong again.
Alternative #1) Eminent domain proceedings to seize the Browns from the bumbling baby billionaire and return them to the hands of the people who can hold management accountable by way of public process. Alternative #2) Randy Lerner sells Browns to someone competent, anyone will do for now. #2 is obviously less preferable, and both alternatives depend on Cleveland denouncing Chief Wahoo and exorcising Wahoo’s curse, of course.
Anyway, I might be a lot of things, but I’m definitely not the shortsighted one here, bud. Thx.
I’ll start where you started; “Lordy where to start”?
“Give Mangini Taylor, Sheard and DQwell Jackson and you’re talking about a defense that’s twice as good as what he had to work with.”
Uhmm okay but your are losing Benard, Roth, Kenyon Coleman, Robaire Smith, Eric Barton, and David Bowens, all aging veterans offering their peek potential, more than likely only going to offer less as they get older. For a one year snapshot are you seriously going to say that the three guys you mentioned make the Browns a “BETTER” roster than the 1/2 dozen quality veterans who all made contributions I name. Really? Because if you are ignoring David Bowens you are ignoring his two interceptions/tds against NO and that already puts Mangini at 4 wins instead of 5. I don’t hate Mangini but he maximized the talent out of a group of veterans playing the best ball they could and probably only going downhill. And, as has been mentioned Mangini probably wouldn’t have wanted Taylor, Sheard, and Little because of their checkered past.. I’m sure there was another quality David Veikune Mangini would have preferred over that poor character guy Sheard.
“As for the offense, I really have no idea what you’re trying to say about the quarterbacks, but having to switch them only once after 12 games is better than having to switch them every 2-3 weeks, and a 2nd year QB is better than a rookie”
I have no idea what you are saying either. I have no idea how you can claim with any certainty that a 2nd year QB in a new system with no training camp and no offseason is better off than last years platoon. If you can offer some sort of cogent argument to prove it I’m all ears but right now it sounds like you are throwing out a “Nyahh, Nyahh, I’m right because I wanna be!”
“Pashos on the right offset the loss of Steinbach on the left,”
By all rights this statement should allow me to be able to call you a completely inept evaluator of NFL talent, seize your website and attempt to undo the damage you have done to readers who take you seriously. In what bizzaro universe does having the human breakfast buffet play several games this year offset losing one of the elite pulling guards in the league???? I’m not settling for saying I’m right on this one you need to really prove this because Pashos is an abomination, and he played maybe 2 more games than last year so why didn’t he lock that up last year for Mangini?
“but don’t talk to me about torch burners when I was the only one in town who wanted Mangini to stay by week 9 of 2009.”
Maybe nobody read that piece because they couldn’t get past your glowing scouting report on Pashos.
Alternative #1 is impossible because the NFL has made it clear they won’t allow another team to be owned by a community. And if you are a lawyer you should be disbarred for the belief that eminent domain has anything to do with seizing private property in a situation like this. Bulldozing houses in West Akron to make room for I77 was a nightmare. Trying to prove that the Browns should be taken from Lerner is the second dumbest thing you’ve said (amazingly your Pashos eval is still dumber). #2 is impossible because we seem to be fresh out of billionaires in the area. Nobody would pay for this team if they didn’t have the option to move it, which would almost have to be a condition of sale. And yes you are the shortsighted one because you still haven’t explained how you would have KEPT Mangini and found a competent GM to come in and work with him. Because after Robiskie, MoMass, and Veikune you couldn’t let the Genius run another draft. So put out the name of a real candidate who would have taken over that job and kept Mangini.
Can we stop the “Bob Lamonte” conspiracy? Has anyone here seen a list of his clients. I’ll throw two names at you and hope everyone can just stop it. Jon Gruden and John Fox are both Lamonte guys. Now I can guarantee nobody would be making this Oswalding conspiracy argument if Gruden had come here. And since Holmgren didn’t even interview felllow Lamontian Fox (he was one of only 3 real candidates that could have been hired this past year) how can we possibly say he is only out to make his agent money? Because if money and pleasing the agent were the only option Fox would have been the logical choice. Oh, and Brad Childress is a Lamonte guy too, as is Mike Sherman, Marty Mornihgweg, and Jay Gruden, all of those people are on the list for OC, are you seriously going to hate Holmgren if he interviews any of them? This is what happens when people here/read extremist headlines and react without thinking.
Come on, who among us didn’t realize the Browns were starting from square one with a new, first time head coach who was hired as an offensive specialist after producing the 26th rated offense?
I said it at the time of the hiring, and I’ll say it again: Holmgren was put in a position to take credit for any success the Browns had, and Mangini was setup to take the blame. The team was at least playing hard for Mangini, and while I’m not a huge fan, they seemed headed in a better direction than they do now. Holmgren has never had success as a GM anywhere he’s tried it.
I guess you’ve never seen Jim Caldwell “coach” a game, haha. That being said, Pat Shurmur is the only coach in the NFL who I can honestly say I have no idea what he looks like.
Love the profile pick. First time I’ve visited this site, but the comments above yours – I’m looking from newest to oldest, in that order – are pretty good, on the whole.
I think that the woeful passing attack (which we now see is a product of Colt McCoy and our godawful receiving corps, sans Greg Little) seen during Mangini’s tenure, coupled with the fact that the Green Bay Packers won the Super Bowl were the true reasons for Mangini’s firing. I think it was evident that the Browns played hard, disciplined football for Mangini and Holmgren had to be impressed with the way they took-down the mighty Saints (on their own turf) and Patriots, BUT, Mike was forced to endure the Browns’ clown shoe of a passing attack (albeit not nearly as big a clown shoe as this year… but there were SO many excuses ;)) only to see the Packers, using his preferred style of offense, dominate on their way to a Super Bowl championship.
That said, draft RGIII. There’s an all-encompassing offensive upgrade for ya. And yes, trade-up to do so if need be. What’s it going to cost you, a 2nd and a 3rd at most? Peanuts.