Casual Friday with Denny Mayo – Big Sur Marathon, gin drinks, Shandy/Radlers, Boston marathon legacy – WFNY Podcast – 2013-05-10
May 10, 2013D’Qwell Jackson, Chris Gocong and Eric Barton join Athlete Ally
May 10, 2013“My feeling is that we need to present a different picture of this organization. It’s been stale. It has not done well. I don’t think people view the Browns in a positive light. My perception from the outside was that the Browns just weren’t successful. They weren’t energetic or forward-thinking. I’m not afraid of transparency. Most of what we do here — there’s no secret to it.”
On Monday, there was much consternation to be had. Not only had Terry Pluto been the subject of a complete hack job, it was reported that the Cleveland Browns listed their draft sheet not by position or grade, but alphabetically. Debate ranged from incompetence and baseless speculation to blind benefit of the doubt—maybe the Browns had multiple draft boards; the report, however, stated nothing of the sort. The end result was a discussion surrounding how the debates surrounding the unknown could be silenced if the Browns had taken our pro bono advice, an output typically reserved for overpaid consultants and advisory firms.
It’s simple, really: Talk to people. The Browns left the 2013 NFL Draft with Barkevious Mingo and a handful of draft picks for 2014. Had the team allowed someone—anyone—to have an inside track to the thought process, all there would be to debate would be the merits of their thought process. Instead, we are left with the insufferable back-and-forth regarding what-should-have-been, rooted entirely in speculation, topped off with splash of agenda. This led to the next sequence of tweets.
The Monday after the #Cavs draft last year, Brian Windhorst published that inside look at the team's process.
— Scott @ WFNY (@WFNYScott) May 6, 2013
Some fans may have disagreed with the pick of Dion Waiters, but the thought process behind the pick was there for all to see.
— Scott @ WFNY (@WFNYScott) May 6, 2013
It's mind-blowing that Berea doesn't see value in exposure like this.
— Scott @ WFNY (@WFNYScott) May 6, 2013
Following the 2012 NBA Draft, ESPN’s Brian Windhorst published a piece that was written from the inside. The Cleveland Cavaliers allowed the long-time scribe to be a fly on the wall during what was a crucial evening, one integral in the rebuilding process of a team that had once been perennially on top. During that night, Windhorst was radio silent—his whereabouts were unknown, texts were not returned. The output of his work, largely thanks to access, was superb. While Cavalier fans were able to discuss whether or not they agreed with the thought process behind the selection of Dion Waiters and Tyler Zeller, they were able to understand the why in addition to the what.
Little did I know, while I was firing off the tweets above, Grantland’s Chuck Klosterman was filing and editing a piece that was ultimately published on Thursday, documenting his behind-the-scenes reporting from Berea on the night of the NFL Draft. The piece is extremely well reported, and contains plenty of draft-day facts that clear a lot of the air regarding the players themselves: the Browns were set on Barkevious Mingo and were only going to trade down had he not been available at sixth overall; there were multiple trades proposed, one which included multiple first-round picks for future drafts that would leave the Browns without a first-round pick in 2013; assistant GM Ray Farmer was a part of the war room; Rob Chudzinski was a huge fan of an unnamed offensive lineman who would’ve been a target in a trade-down scenario; Lombardi is a huge fan of the SEC. This was all well and good for those looking for something to chew on. The rest of the several-thousand-word story, however, left the Browns looking worse than they did before they had agreed to let Klosterman in to their compound.
The quote used above is from the team’s new president Alec Scheiner. His backgound has been discussed here before; he was the main attraction for Craig when he descended upon Boston for the Sloan Analytics Conference. It would appear that he gets it, not only based on his words above, but the message he attempted to deliver over that weekend in March. But if Scheiner does in fact get it, he is on an island as the rest of the exposĂ© painted a picture of paranoia, distrust and contradiction—and out and out dismissal of any efforts to erase what is being purported as a misperception. If the Browns feel that they are being falsely accused for being shrouded in a cloak of secrecy, and are not “forward thinkers,” all they did over draft weekend was help cement these beliefs. Letting Grantland in is a step worth applauding—it’s a new-age site that features pop culture and spectacular prose so the intentions were good, I’m sure. What they did after cutting the credential , however, was analogous to Chansi Stuckey fumbling the ball while attempting to gain an extra yard and the team ultimately losing a winnable contest.
Providing bookends to the draft-day nuggets listed above was Klosterman being told multiple times that certain items were off of the record; Scheiner (he of the transparency quote) was painted as the chief offender. A television was giving the war room foursome fits, but an IT worker (a team employee, mind you) was not allowed in the room to fix it until the dry erase board was cleared off. The only discussion Klosterman had with Ken Kovash, the team’s analytics guru, was over dinner and the entire conversation was not allowed to be printed. While Klosterman was waiting in the new cafeteria—which drew rave reviews for food quality, for what it is worth—he was shadowed by Brian Smith, one of the team’s public relations members who has yet to reply to a voicemail I left him several weeks ago. Smith was specifically instructed to monitor Klosterman, a long-time writer and published novelist, so he would not speak to any employees without the team knowing.
“I don’t think they’re building chemical weapons in Berea,” writes Klosterman. “But they might be. I can’t say for sure.”
Klosterman was turned down multiple times when requesting an interview with Joe Banner, a man whom he did credit in the footnotes for being “hypercompetent.” The piece de resistance, however, came at approximately 5:30pm on Thursday night when the draft was about to begin. As Klosterman was gearing up to soak in all of the nuances, similar to what Windhorst did a few months earlier with the Cavaliers, he was escorted out of the room by Scheiner—without explanation. It is at this point where it is worth mentioning that this was the reason Klosterman was there to begin with—the draft room was the story. Instead, given zero insight and blanketed by public relations members, the story was relegated to all of the black paint being applied to the pristine new office windows which are set to overlook the practice field—the “institutional paranoia.”
It is easy to say that this is a “football” thing, that what Windhorst did with the Cavaliers on the night of the NBA Draft was merely indicative of a culture in basketball that isn’t as pervasive in football. ESPN the Magazine has recently run multiple features on NBA teams as the Indiana Pacers and Portland Trailblazers both gave unfettered access to team meetings, practices and analytics-based employees are typically kept behind the scenes, adding machines and all. But all it takes is a quick Google search to see that this is no longer the case. Days before Klosterman’s piece ran, Sports Illustrated’s Peter King wrote from inside the war room of the St. Louis Rams, detailing not just the mannerisms of the men involved, but the discussions that took place surrounding the selections as well as the trades that were agreed to. It was short and sweet, but the piece was exactly what Klosterman should (and likely assumed he would) have been able to see.
We have long wondered why the Browns, a team in dire need of positive public relations, continues to mishandle opportunities when they arise. Why haven’t they endeared themselves to a local reporter? Why are they so secretive? Why do they not have the common courtesy to reply to emails or return phone calls? The Cavaliers are masterful at controlling the message; the Indians are not far behind, albeit with a little extra needed effort. In reporting stories in the past, I’ve had several instances of “off-the-record” replies, but there may have been one or two for every 10 that were on. I’ve had multiple one-on-ones with players and executives where there was not a PR staff member anywhere to be seen. For full disclosure, I have exchanged emails with Mike Lombardi. He is as affable as Klosterman describes in his piece. The fact that the team continues to largely hide him from the media, appearances on the new radio homes not withstanding, is baffling. The inability (or outright unwillingness) to be forward thinkers, while claiming that there is a misperception surrounding such a cultural characteristic could not be more ironic. This goes well beyond the whole “fans don’t need to know everything” narrative that is fastened together by strawmen. There is a substantial difference between calculated decisions and outright paranoia. Unfortunately, as Klosterman’s piece documents, this Browns team—with a “burnt orange shade of opaque”—treads heavily on the latter.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Browns felt that allowing Grantland to have access would work out in their benefit. Klosterman is an energetic and creative writer who provides unique perspective on a variety of topics. But his perspective is based on reporting and having the ability to ask the tough questions. Perspective is nothing without knowledge, and if the firewalls prevent such from being obtained, we’re left with a picture of disconnect—if Scheiner does in fact pride himself on transparency, the rest of his colleagues are not like-minded. To say that there is a misperception on the current regime based on the missteps of the predecessors is fair. Not actively changing it is akin to a company taking over BP in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and making nary an effort to clean it up because it did not occur on their watch.
Klosterman describes himself sitting in the end zone of the team’s indoor practice facility, bunkered with the local media who are watching the draft unfold on televisions before them. I can picture the bearded scribe walking down the field, alone, with a messenger bag strewn over his shoulder as the Cleveland media stares at him like a pack of deer, smirking on the inside as the big national guy was given the same boot they have been given for the majority of the last decade. The big difference: where a piece by a local beat reporter would be devoured by you or I, this piece by Klosterman was given top billing on a national site that is devoured by millions every day. It may be a few years before the four men who were sitting in the war room can have an effect on the inept win total that has driven fans crazy since 1999. The public relations battle could have been won yesterday. Instead, it was escorted out of the room and was forced to republish the same robotic quotes that were given to everyone else.
“This is the outcome we were hoping for,” were the words spoken by Joe Banner following the selection of Barkevious Mingo with the sixth overall pick. It’s fair to assume that those words can now only be placed on their selection as the described fallout—the paranoia, the guarded mentality and the off-record response—could not have been mishandled any worse. As Scheiner said above, the team needs to paint a different picture of the organization. First, they will need to come to terms with the fact that that this can’t be done unless someone is willing to pick up a brush and display the final product.
85 Comments
This whole “alphabetical draft board” issue is a big fat nothing. I can’t believe anybody takes this even half-seriously.
It should be noted, in this atmosphere of paranoia I take it with a grain of salt that they were shooting for Mingo. It seems as if there is a lot of saving face going on here.
Lombardi learned from the master of secrecy and paranoia, Belichick.
the things I gained from the article:
(1) yes, Mingo was the only player on their board at #6
(2) they had 2 potential trades if he was gone
2-A: the Rams trade that the Bills took
2-B: a further trade down for a 2nd, 2 future 1st’s and lower picks (49ers?)
(3) he claims that we didn’t have nutrition as a high-priority before (though Peter King always claimed we had among the best food in the NFL over the years – inconsistency here?)
(4) they baited-and-switched Klosterman on how much access he would be given. seeing how the Rams gave Peter King more, it’s a bit disappointing, but Chuck made the entire article about it and that grew tiresome to read.
(5) Klosterman has Cleveland fans pegged extremely well (and he should as he wrote for the A-BJ once upon a time).
as far as the transparency angle, the Browns do not owe us transparency. it can be to their benefit to grant more, but it also can be to their detriment. that is for them to judge and manage. I used to care about it, but have grown to see that, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.
This article is incredibly shortsighted. There is absolutely no reason for the Brown to expose their thought process for drafting players (especially if its turns out that they really know what they are doing). Shedding light on how the Browns went about grading players and making real time decisions would, in fact, help the competition. Winning takes care of all of these whiny articles nitpicking every move that the team is doing. For my sanity I hope that the team can turn it around this year because I cannot read much more whining, gloom, and doom. Plus, I would love to see that hack Grossi eat crow.
I’d like to hear the conversation between Klosterman and Bill Simmons: “You said your boy Lombardi was going to give me full access. What’s his deal?”
“(4) they baited-and-switched Klosterman on how much access he would be given. seeing how the Rams gave Peter King more, it’s a bit disappointing, but Chuck made the entire article about it and that grew tiresome to read.”
It didnt *have* to be about it, but that’s the bed the team made. Reporters are the eyes and ears for fans. Would be dishonest if it wasn’t a focal point.
I think the Browns had wanted to be transparent in the interest of building PR goodwill, but it was the wrong year to allow “access.” Next year they would’ve had their scouts in place, had their beats down, and would have been more comfortable and less retiscent. Plus Lombardi would have been presumably more public and accessible. Basically a little premature on the stunt and thus a bit of a fail.
Firstly, I loved the Klosterman piece, and good summary above.
Second – I don’t see the issue with the IT guy portion, that’s much ado about nothing. The last thing a team needs on draft day is some tech tweeting the pick out and other teams knowing who the Browns are considering. If Arizona or someone else wanted Mingo they’d jump them to get him.
Third – As others noted, Klosterman NAILED the Browns fan as rabid, loving, and negative. I thought that line was the best of the piece.
Fourth – You left out an important part of the Lombardi OL love, which was Banner telling him off with what a bust is – four guys sitting in a room convincing themselves someone is better than they are. Also worth noting is his praise for Banner.
Finally – Klosterman even notes that the Haslam appearance is what got him kicked out of the room, and likely because of the Pilot Flying J stuff. Until then it seems he would have remained in the room all night, and we’d have a very different article. He was (fairly) miffed at not getting the story he was promised, so he focused instead on the story he got, which was the secrecy. But I don’t believe that other teams are too much less secret. He knew about Mingo, he knew about the trade option to St. Louis, he knew about the trade option to that other team (which was fascinating). That’s a lot of access, and he would know more had Haslam not kicked him out.
The bigger picture is not about what information they should or should not release. The issue here is that they promised a prominent, national writer a certain level of access, only to revoke it without explanation at the very last moment. It’s an incredibly embarrassing look for the organization, and I’m sure the other 31 teams all read it and laughed. Not at Klosterman, but at the Browns. The Browns could have just declined Klosterman’s request for access and none of this would matter.
I don’t think they intended to shut him out, and the plan was for him to have the access he requested. It changed literally on the spot when Haslam came. Still embarrassing, but in light of what happened at least somewhat understandable.
You’re absolutely right. The only difference between how the Patriots operate and the new-Browns is the recent history of success in New England. Ask any Pats fan what it was like around Boston before they started winning. Very similar to how it was here in the early 90s. The media hated Belichick’s smug and flippant attitude. They still do to an extent. But now? Everyone just “gets it”. Who’s gonna be the one to take on the almighty Belichick? Nobody. As long as his team wins, who cares what the thought process is? You’ll still see the moves by Belichick being questioned, right up until they win 14 games this year. Rinse and repeat.
Rest assured, this new Browns regime is following a blueprint and they won’t stop until it results in the same success being seen in New England. By then, the hand-wringing over transparency and winning the PR battle will be a distant memory. The culture will have changed because the most important thing, the product on the field, has changed. Not because they made friends with the press. It’s obvious that they don’t care. Winning is what matters in the ultra-competitive NFL. Not public relations. The sooner those in the media realize and understand this, the better.
*this all comes with one very important caveat… they better win.
No. They wanted Mingo. I guarantee it. As soon as he was on the board, they turned in the card. They would’ve taken the trade down with STL if he wasn’t there.
Ah, Waiting for Next Year. (But I do agree.)
Some people would probably prefer that next year the team make their draft selections based on the averaged results of Facebook and Twitter polls.
Just like when I get work done at my house or with my personal finances, I prefer to hire people that are considered experts and do something for a living so I can trust them to do a competent, excellent job. If they don’t, they get fired and I try someone else next time. Nothing different with a football team. No matter how they go about their business, if the end result is wins who cares about the “process”?
Well played.
I agree that it was silly to invite Klosterman in and then shut him out. Don’t know who’s decision it was but they should’ve just decline the opportunity altogether.
It’s news to me that the “forward thinking” mantra ever had anything to do with access to the media in general. The media is the fans more or less, and the mantra has been that there were going to be football decisions made for long term success and not dictated by the fans/media rabble rousing. This sounds more like an isolated attempt in and of itself than some concerted effort that the organization failed at. You guys (Media) aren’t part of long sustained football success, and you’re not part of an improved stadium experience, so I just don’t recall hearing much about anything you guys were promised. Maybe the media has been made promises, but I just don’t have that impression. Funny how it just goes around like that.
Frankly, I could not care less about the feelings of Klosterman, his readers, or other teams. I want the Browns to win. This is a nonstory to me.
I agree with most of this. Though if they “didnt care,” they would not have had Klosterman there at all. This was a mutual benefit—the story was supposed to include more insight. Yes, winning will solve everything, but I maintain that the controllable should be controlled.
If the article was tiresome, why not post some of the most mundane points out of it with some uninspiringly dimwitted personal notes? Oh you already have.
Shortsighted, it does not mean what you think it means.
or comment on said post (and so the circle continues 🙂 )
I understand what you’re saying, Scott. I agree that inviting Klosterman in and then shutting him out was a misstep that could have been avoided altogether. I was really enjoying his story until it became all about how he was ignored and denied access as the pinnacle of the draft was approaching. As a fan, I was able to feel his disappointment of not getting the peek inside that room. He succeeded in capturing that feeling if that was his intent.
yes, I’m not sure what the team was thinking. especially promising him access to the actual draft room experience and not giving it to him (I think if he is just allowed to sit in that room until the Mingo pick, then the entire article is written differently).
Totally agree Ezzie. I think the Haslam point may be key. Chuck suggests that the Flying J heat got him kicked out of the room at the start of the draft; although, it might even be fair to intimate that it played a hand in the shroud of secrecy that existed throughout the entire visit. Who knows, but it had to at least be a factor…
This is exactly right. Why invite Klosterman in to report on the draft to just kick him out when the story is starting? Why give him the boot with no explanationa nd no apology (unitl the next day)? Why talk about transparency but keep everything “off the record?” It’s fine to be secretive, but they should’ve explained to Grantland from the get-go what they were and were not going to allow. It’s just another black-eye for this new regime that is not helping to erase the mistakes of the old one.
(4) Considering what little they gave him, he had to write about something. He’s going to go back to his editor with a non-story?
Lacking foresight is what it means and what I meant..
I don’t know, I think a paranoid and grasping football team goes well with a paranoid and grasping fanbase. (See number and depth of comments here.)
Speak for yourself. I’ve been paranoia-free ever since I made my new tin-foil helmet. Reynolds Wrap Extra-Wide Heavy Duty. It’s beautiful. People can’t take their eyes off it. You should try it. It will soothe you.
It’s a gratuitous omission to leave out the reason why Klosterman speculates he was escorted from the boardroom- the entrance of the Browns owner. Chuck makes it apparent his dismissal was in regard to a greater force than secrecy about the draft. It’s unfortunate the Browns are in a position to have a cause to boot Klosterman beyond paranoia but they do, and it’s negligible for you to allude his dismissal from the room moments prior to the draft is attributed to this “guarded mentality.”
Negligent, even.
no Andrew, a slight to a reporter is the much smaller point. It’s turned into an interesting read but no biggie to the fanbase as a whole, at least those who don’t double as reporters themselves and are sensitive to this stuff.
Only those whose names start with “M” or below take it seriously.
For the record, I TOTALLY get the Browns’ paranoia with respect to Cable Guy. The last thing they needed was Mr. ITT Tech grabbing his phone as soon as he left the room and tweeting, under the handle “TooTallTyrion” or “BobaLives” (I can’t recall which one he is): “Fixed TVs in Brownz draft room. Their taking Barkomious Mingoo! #SriousBrownzInsidr”
I will be spending my weekend trying to get #SriousBrownzInsidr” to trend
It was “omitted” because it carries no weight against the team’s 11th-hour retraction of an obvious multi-day agreement. Klosterman was escorted out without reason or prior indication. Would appear to be an odd way to “change perception” if this was indeed the goal.
I see this agonizing as coming from a narrow vantage point. Fans primarily want the Browns make the right decisions. The internet and twitter may greatly amplify the voices of people who demand more, but that doesn’t reflect the majority of the fanbase or mean that’s what the Browns should do. The team principals may not be totally comfortable with it even if in they wanted to try it as a marketing tool. They may have been only comfortable enough to dip their toe, not understanding that failing to leap in would result in the scorned reporter blasting them. Criticize them for that mistake, not “paranoia.”
What I’ve noticed over the years is that members of the sports media who are given access and treated nicely often blur the distinction between the abilities of the execs or players who talk to them with the courtesies granted to them by those execs and players. Manny Acta and Antawn Jamison are not leaders in the clubhouse just because they are so nice to reporters, and Scheiner is not incompetent because it felt to Klosterman like a double-cross and screwed up a good story. Albert Belle loses the MVP to Mo Vaughn, although the award has nothing to with speaking to reporters.
Most fans don’t share this demand to know everything. If it is shared, fine. The Rams do it? Wow. I guess. Reporters are greatly concerned with getting better stories. But fans mainly want to win – stories about winning are more fun, even based on much less access and more speculation. Fans of the Patriots and Spurs like their front offices just as tight-lipped and ornery as they have been, and will until the team starts losing. And at that point, additional access for inside looks won’t make those fans feel any better.
Considering what everyone knows about Haslem post affidavit, is this corporate spite really so surprising? It’s the sort of attitude that trickles down through an organization.
But he himself admitted it might have been Haslam, not any of the other four that ultimately had him booted.
Whether it was for the Pilot investigation or not, I compare this to when you’re a kid and you invite a buddy over for dinner before asking your mom. Things are good, you’re playing in the backyard and then mom gets home and asks what Timmy is doing over this late. You try to explain that you invited him over for dinner but mom says absolutely not so you have to sheepishly tell Timmy he has to go home.
It’s not “agonizing” as much as pointing out the chasm between the teams perception of itself and its present state. The team felt they were being transparent when they were everything but. If that’s the way they want to be, fine…just don’t pretend or act surprised when those tasked with reporting on your subject matter are forced to speculate and use ancillary “sources.”
Yes, stories about winning are largely more fun to read and write. Unfortunately, if this was the only time stories were written, local newspapers would’ve folded a decade ago.
Very well stated.
The bigger picture of Scott’s article, which the person I responded to referred to as “shortsighted”.
I’ll read again, but didn’t see anything that tells us about the team’s “perception of itself,” as opposed to its being willing to slightly crack open the shades, but not enough to potentially compromise parts of their decision-making they wish to keep confidential. And I didn’t see where they pretended or acted surprised.
Here’s the diff in our thinking, I think: you think they’re kidding themselves, they just don’t get this cutting-edge successful attitude. I think by inviting this guy they were willing to try and kid us, not themselves, just giving us a little taste for PR purposes. Not change the tight-lipped, need-to-know way they want to run the org. Which is fine by Fan Harv, maybe not by Fan/Reporter Scott.
Disagree. I think it carries all the weight necessary.
The Browns likely entered into the agreement with Klosterman because he is viewed as a legitimate journalist. If you’re a legitimate journalist and you’re in a room when Jimmy Haslam – under IRS/FBI investigation – walks in, what do you do? Just continue to observe? Ask only football-related questions? Of course not. You ask legitimate journalistic questions about serious journalistic issues like IRS and FBI investigations. Haslam (and the Browns) knew this, and this is why they asked him to leave. At that point, who cares about “perception?” There are bigger, more important (certainly legally important) issues to deal with and to avoid.
Mark Reynolds appreciates you using his family’s fine product.
In your analogy Haslam doesn’t know a reporter is going to be there. Which means he is not fully aware of what is going on in his organization. Which in turn leads me to believe that he may not have known anything about rebate frauds at Flying J.
Perfect, that’s one distraction cleared up right there.
Especially true when Timmy would love to find out (and write a school report on) what your mom has been hiding from your dad!