Bring in Gruden!

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by Greythan

If you're saying we'd be 3-3 with a different head coach, I'm calling bullshit. I just don't see it.

I'm saying we are right where we were last season. I am not jumping ship because of the record. I do see improvement. But the rate of improvement is too slow for me. At this pace it could be 2016 until we're a contender.

[Masters]

Originally Posted by Flugel

I'm not so sure Gruden was any different to Tampa than Barry Switzer was to Dallas. Sometimes talent deep teams can win in spite of a Brian Billick. I think people are expecting that Randy Lerner is gonna hire this guy that can call perfect plays when a situation like Stallworth goes to jail, Braylon Edwards is sick of Cleveland, Steve Heiden feels like Humpty Dumpty on the pavement and the choice of QB is an inexperienced Brady Quinn Savage overrated or the guy destined to backup Max Hall in Arizona. Jon Gruden's F-bombs weren't gonna turn Derek Anderson/Brady Quinn into David Copperfield behind Center on game day any more than BB was able to make Todd Philcox rise above football follies. It had ZERO to do with how smart BB was or right for the job. When you only have the talent to attack from the runnign game - you're playing chess without a lot of big attack pieces. Doesn't that shed some degree of light on why BB was winless with Bledsoe the very same year Tom Brady gave him his 1st Superbowl Championship as a Head Coach?

BOTH Head Coaches took over very talented rosters accustomed to post seasons. It wasn't Tampa's offense we were watching score 4 TDs in the Superbowl - it was their defense scoring against the Oakland offense Gruden could NEVER get to Superbowl Sunday. Hate it all you want but those were Monte Kiffen's game plans not to be confused with Jon Gruden's. Seemed like it all played out completely around what Gruden was there for - the Tampa Bay offense. The players in Tampa always loved Monte Kiffen. I'm betting if there was a coach the veterans that had been there for a while were putting it all on the line for - it was Kiffen more than it was Gruden.

I don't hate Gruden or anything. I actually think he's funny and possesses a smart offensive mind particularly when he's working for a good head coach above him. I just don't think alot of today's players respect him for very long as the Head Coach figure. I've read quite a few comments from both of the last 2 teams he coached to make me think this way. As fast as that Tampa team peaked - it all unravelled very quickly afterward. The cumulative effect of Gruden's drafting had them flipping a coin with us for the right to draft 3rd overall. Since he got fired, they've always been draft near us in the upper parts of round 1. I think MNF Football with Jaws is the perfect niche for him and his personality.

He's from Ohio originally, so I understand the loyalties some have for him.
- Tom F.

First off, I have no idea why you are bring up Edwards or any of those guys. It has nothing to do with Gruden being a good coach and no one has said he could have made those guys play here.

Of course it is different than Switzer taking over DAL. For the simple reason of where did Gruden come from before TB and what did he do with that team. He had OAK in 4 years on the cusp of the SB and would have been in it if not for the tuck rule (40–28 win-loss record in four seasons with the Raiders). That team he molded (especially it's offense) then made it to the SB. Unfortunately they had to face it's former HC in Gruden. He also took over a team that was 9-7 the year before and went 12-4 year one.

If it was all Kiffen, why could TB never win in cold weather or get past other teams? I am not diminishing Kiffen, he's a fantastic defensive coach. But you are trying to take it to a far extreme, when reality is that TB team was a pretender for years. While Kiffen may be the architect, the arrival of Gruden as HC resulted in that team executing the best D since the 85 Bears. Delegation and leading skills are a requirement for the HC job and obviously Gruden knew how to use those skills. And yes that D is what lit up OAK in the SB. The reason was Gruden's familiarity with that O and spending the weeks leading up to the SB working directly with the D, which he rarely did.

As to players not respecting him or enjoying him very long, that happens with Parcels and BB as well. It's the nature of the beast.

TB unraveled because they used the life blood of a team (1st round picks) to get Gruden. They gave up 2002 and 2003 first-round draft picks, 2002 and 2004 second-round draft picks. They handcuffed themselves to get Gruden.

[Tobalaz]

Originally Posted by Greythan

Not following you Veg.

We're on our 3rd QB due to injuries.

If you're saying we'd be 3-3 with a different head coach, I'm calling bullshit. I just don't see it.

I think with a more knowledgeable offensive coordinator there's a good chance we wouldn't be on our 3rd qb right now since every time Dabs calls a passing play he's leaving about as much protection as the Run N Shoot did for the qb.

[Legacy Fan]

Bring in Gruden as an OC? Sure. HC? No thanks.

[Flugel]

Originally Posted by Masters

First off, I have no idea why you are bring up Edwards or any of those guys. It has nothing to do with Gruden being a good coach and no one has said he could have made those guys play here.

Of course it is different than Switzer taking over DAL. For the simple reason of where did Gruden come from before TB and what did he do with that team. He had OAK in 4 years on the cusp of the SB and would have been in it if not for the tuck rule (40–28 win-loss record in four seasons with the Raiders). That team he molded (especially it's offense) then made it to the SB. Unfortunately they had to face it's former HC in Gruden. He also took over a team that was 9-7 the year before and went 12-4 year one.

If it was all Kiffen, why could TB never win in cold weather or get past other teams? I am not diminishing Kiffen, he's a fantastic defensive coach. But you are trying to take it to a far extreme, when reality is that TB team was a pretender for years. While Kiffen may be the architect, the arrival of Gruden as HC resulted in that team executing the best D since the 85 Bears. Delegation and leading skills are a requirement for the HC job and obviously Gruden knew how to use those skills. And yes that D is what lit up OAK in the SB. The reason was Gruden's familiarity with that O and spending the weeks leading up to the SB working directly with the D, which he rarely did.

If we counted on Gruden to BUILD this team from what it was with the 4 draft picks inherited for 2009 in support of the previous draft volume of 5, would he get this team ANY better than he got Tampa in the 4-5 years he was there? Gruden inherited a lot of All Pros and former All Pros in Tampa like Simeon Rice, Brad Johnson, John Lynch, Derrick Brooks, Ronde Barber and Warren Sapp so they were accustomed to post seasons even if they had to previously include Trent Dilfer or Sean King as the man behind the offense scoring or lackthereof. St Louis was indoors and I don't think the defense played bad if you review the final score. You're thinking they missed having an OC taking over their defensive game plans for that 1 week so the defense could score all the TDs? Interesting. I never looked at it like that. I'm amazed he's jobless if he's so good at building teams from nothing; and players just love him so. Don't get me wrong, if all it took to solve all of Cleveland's problems and inherited land mines was another Napoleon Complex and a Chuckie frown - I'd be just as excited as your are. Then again, we'd have to understand that Tampa got progressively worse every season that team became more and more the result of Gruden's personnel decisions.

There's a REASON guys like Cowher and Schottenheiimer was saying no thanks. Don't think they they didn't look into how many draft picks were on deck for the upcoming 2009 season. And don't think they weren't looking at what was left from the 2008 draft volume of 5 picks. And even worse, don't think they didn't know they had a defensive line full of overpaid FAs from 1 gap schemes (from 4-3 defenses) manning down the 3 man line spots. We've had to purge Corey Willams and Shaun Smith while we've been problem solving Rogers less than enthused fitness levels. Meanwhile, Robaire's age helps us to understand proneness to an achilles tendon injury that sat him out 1 full season and the wear and tear sidelining him again this year. This is ALL planning for starting lineups on Sundays. So WHY shouldn't I have included Stallworth, Edwards and Lewis based on the monies committed to from the Savage regime having them more than penciled into starting spots where further planning centered around the priorities of filling other holes. These were some of highest paid players just like our punter and Shaun Rogers. Did Gruden really walk into such a setup in Tampa Bay Masters? I think you know he did not. They had better Management above the Head Coach that had them team in many post seasons before he got there. It's nowhere near the apples to apples you want it to be for this discussion.

What's most interesting about Gruden's most recent 5 year plan is that they are often drafting ahead of/adjacent to the Cleveland Browns in that upper half of round 1. Not sure WHERE that makes him perfect for the task in Cleveland. When game planning switches from finding your most impressive scoring weapons to hiding your biggest weaknesses - you see the difference in cognitive ergonomics of Sunday chess. And gruden looked quite a bit different when he was coachign up HIS personnel decisions to the ones he inherited in that 1st year in sunshine.

ALOT of guys can coach talented teams. But SOME experience culture shock when they go to crappy teams with very few draft day keepers in sight and lousy FA choices all around. I'm sure Gary Nolan, Rod Marinelli, Romeo Crennel, Linde Infante, Dick Jauron, Jim Haslett and even Marvin Lewis can shed some light on this.
- Tom F.

[hiwaygal]

Originally Posted by Flugel

ALOT of guys can coach talented teams. But SOME experience culture shock when they go to crappy teams with very few draft day keepers in sight and lousy FA choices all around. I'm sure Gary Nolan, Rod Marinelli, Romeo Crennel, Linde Infante, Dick Jauron, Jim Haslett and even Marvin Lewis can shed some light on this.
- Tom F.

Don't forget Mike Tomlin.

[Masters]

Originally Posted by Flugel

If we counted on Gruden to BUILD this team from what it was with the 4 draft picks inherited for 2009 in support of the previous draft volume of 5, would he get this team ANY better than he got Tampa in the 4-5 years he was there?

I am not time traveling and saying what Gruden could or couldn't have done if he was hired in 2009 (which he seemed to have no interest in doing in 2009). So I don't follow your point of bringing this up. It has nothing to do with his coaching resume. And no one is saying if a team, be it CLE or some other, that Gruiden would have control of personal (I believe any team is nuts to give one guy total control, it doesn't work).

Originally Posted by Flugel

Gruden inherited a lot of All Pros and former All Pros in Tampa like Simeon Rice, Brad Johnson, John Lynch, Derrick Brooks, Ronde Barber and Warren Sapp so they were accustomed to post seasons even if they had to previously include Trent Dilfer or Sean King as the man behind the offense scoring or lackthereof. St Louis was indoors and I don't think the defense played bad if you review the final score.

Brad Johnson really didn't do much in TB until Gruden came in (happened to end up being team MVP for the 2002 season and tossed 2 TDs in the SB win). But sure at TB he was given some quality players. He sure wasn't at OAK. The team you seem to want to ignore when discussing Gruden's resume and history. TB wasn't his only HC job.

I don't know what St. Louis has to do with anything.

Originally Posted by Flugel

You're thinking they missed having an OC taking over their defensive game plans for that 1 week so the defense could score all the TDs? Interesting. I never looked at it like that. I'm amazed he's jobless if he's so good at building teams from nothing; and players just love him so. Don't get me wrong, if all it took to solve all of Cleveland's problems and inherited land mines was another Napoleon Complex and a Chuckie frown - I'd be just as excited as your are. Then again, we'd have to understand that Tampa got progressively worse every season that team became more and more the result of Gruden's personnel decisions.

For the SB, it has a huge impact. Just about every player on that D has commented about it in one interview or another. But I am not saying that's all TB as a whole was missing before Gruden came in. I think that team for years was missing a fire under it's ass and needed it. Something that wasn't Dungy's MO.

No one has said he's "so good at building teams from nothing". Though there wasn't a whole lot in OAK when he got there. But again, whether he were to coach CLE, or any other team, his job should be to coach. I wouldn't give an HC full authority over personal.

Why Gruden is not coaching today is his choice. He wasn't interested in coaching after getting sacked by TB. Don't be surprised to see him roaming a sideline next season.

Gruden did not have full personal control in TB. TB also struggled and could not maintain because they traded away their life blood, draft picks, to get Gruden. Not sure this track record in TB is "progressively worse"

TAM	2002	12	4	0	.750	1st in NFC South	3	0	1.000	Won Super Bowl XXXVII
TAM	2003	7	9	0	.438	3rd in NFC South	-	-	-	-
TAM	2004	5	11	0	.312	4th in NFC South	-	-	-	-
TAM	2005	11	5	0	.688	1st in NFC South	0	1	.000	Lost to Washington Redskins in NFC Wild-Card Game.
TAM	2006	4	12	0	.250	4th in NFC South	-	-	-	-
TAM	2007	9	7	0	.563	1st in NFC South	0	1	.000	Lost to New York Giants in NFC Wild-Card Game.
TAM	2008	9	7	0	.563	3rd in NFC South	-	-	-	-

Originally Posted by Flugel

There's a REASON guys like Cowher and Schottenheiimer was saying no thanks. Don't think they they didn't look into how many draft picks were on deck for the upcoming 2009 season. And don't think they weren't looking at what was left from the 2008 draft volume of 5 picks. And even worse, don't think they didn't know they had a defensive line full of overpaid FAs from 1 gap schemes (from 4-3 defenses) manning down the 3 man line spots. We've had to purge Corey Willams and Shaun Smith while we've been problem solving Rogers less than enthused fitness levels. Meanwhile, Robaire's age helps us to understand proneness to an achilles tendon injury that sat him out 1 full season and the wear and tear sidelining him again this year. This is ALL planning for starting lineups on Sundays. So WHY shouldn't I have included Stallworth, Edwards and Lewis based on the monies committed to from the Savage regime having them more than penciled into starting spots where further planning centered around the priorities of filling other holes. These were some of highest paid players just like our punter and Shaun Rogers. Did Gruden really walk into such a setup in Tampa Bay Masters? I think you know he did not. They had better Management above the Head Coach that had them team in many post seasons before he got there. It's nowhere near the apples to apples you want it to be for this discussion.

You are creating a discussion again that doesn't exist. I have not said Gruden could have come in last year and done better or anything with what was in CLE. I have not said CLE should have hired Gruden in 2009. None of those guys, or what CLE had on their roster has anything to do with whether Gruden is a good NFL coach or not. That why there is zero point in bringing up those guys.

Originally Posted by Flugel

What's most interesting about Gruden's most recent 5 year plan is that they are often drafting ahead of/adjacent to the Cleveland Browns in that upper half of round 1. Not sure WHERE that makes him perfect for the task in Cleveland. When game planning switches from finding your most impressive scoring weapons to hiding your biggest weaknesses - you see the difference in cognitive ergonomics of Sunday chess. And gruden looked quite a bit different when he was coachign up HIS personnel decisions to the ones he inherited in that 1st year in sunshine.

ALOT of guys can coach talented teams. But SOME experience culture shock when they go to crappy teams with very few draft day keepers in sight and lousy FA choices all around. I'm sure Gary Nolan, Rod Marinelli, Romeo Crennel, Linde Infante, Dick Jauron, Jim Haslett and even Marvin Lewis can shed some light on this.
- Tom F.

Notice when Gruden left, TB still had a winning record? But no one said he was perfect, or perfect for CLE. Gruden never had personal control in TB, and if he was in CLE I wouldn't give him personal decisions. I'd make him a HC, that's it. Gruden got a crappy team in OAK and made them winners. But we keep ignoring what he did in OAK and want to focus only on what he was given in TB.

[golfer704u]

But Masters, Tom's point and discussion topic is, You seem to be in favor of getting rid of Mangini.

Then you seem to be in favor of at least considering Gruden as his replacement.

Well then I think it's a fair disucssion to have with as to whether Gruden could have done any better with the position Mangini was left in. And as Tom and you have both pointed out, Gruden was handcuffed in TB because of the lack of draft picks he had because they gave them up to give him. Well Mangini was handcuffed here with the lack of draft picks Savage and Crennel left him.

So if you are defending Gruden as a coach based on the fact he coached well with good players but couldn't do much when he didn't have the draft picks, how can you have have the oposite opinion about Mangini given similar circumstances?

and I understand your problems with Mangini are based in what you see on the field now, but you weren't watching Grudens teams in TB as close as you are the Browns. That's why some of us believe it's not fair to judge Mangini as a coach in two years based on where he had to start from.

Now you can look at his draft and say he put himself in some of that position, and I might agree, however, that has changed now. and I definitely agree with you no Coach should be given or be forced to the coach and GM and heck in Mangini's case "director of football operations". We now have 3 people doing the jobs mangini was trying to do and he only has to do the one, coach.

That's why I believe he deserves one more year. I almost look at as that first year doesn't count, because whether by his own fault or the fauly of Kokinis, he was trying to do too much that first year. Now that he is coach only that 3 year window you spoke of should start from the begining of THIS season.

[hiwaygal]

Originally Posted by golfer704u

That's why I believe he deserves one more year. I almost look at as that first year doesn't count, because whether by his own fault or the fauly of Kokinis, he was trying to do too much that first year. Now that he is coach only that 3 year window you spoke of should start from the begining of THIS season.

I totally agree with this!

[Flugel]

Originally Posted by golfer704u

But Masters, Tom's point and discussion topic is, You seem to be in favor of getting rid of Mangini.

Then you seem to be in favor of at least considering Gruden as his replacement.

Well then I think it's a fair disucssion to have with as to whether Gruden could have done any better with the position Mangini was left in. And as Tom and you have both pointed out, Gruden was handcuffed in TB because of the lack of draft picks he had because they gave them up to give him. Well Mangini was handcuffed here with the lack of draft picks Savage and Crennel left him.

So if you are defending Gruden as a coach based on the fact he coached well with good players but couldn't do much when he didn't have the draft picks, how can you have have the oposite opinion about Mangini given similar circumstances?

and I understand your problems with Mangini are based in what you see on the field now, but you weren't watching Grudens teams in TB as close as you are the Browns. That's why some of us believe it's not fair to judge Mangini as a coach in two years based on where he had to start from.

Now you can look at his draft and say he put himself in some of that position, and I might agree, however, that has changed now. and I definitely agree with you no Coach should be given or be forced to the coach and GM and heck in Mangini's case "director of football operations". We now have 3 people doing the jobs mangini was trying to do and he only has to do the one, coach.

That's why I believe he deserves one more year. I almost look at as that first year doesn't count, because whether by his own fault or the fauly of Kokinis, he was trying to do too much that first year. Now that he is coach only that 3 year window you spoke of should start from the begining of THIS season.

Thanks Golfer! Very well said!

I look at the NY Jets and every time Mangini had talented and healthy QBs (Pennington & Favre) he won. He was 10-6 and 9-7 in those 2 seasons. And now I look at some of their best players: D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Nick Mangold, David Harris, Darrelle Revis and Dustin Keller. Mangini had massive input to those choices. And they're the core of the team today.

He's brought some similar choices here: Alex Mack, Joe Haden, TJ Ward, Colt McCoy and possibly Shawn Lauvao. I'm not gonna pretend I know who deserves more credit between him and Heckert any more than I know who deserved more credit in NY between him and Tannenbaum. One thing I DO know is there's resemblence of oline and DB commitments. I also listened to Mangini's press conference right after we drafted both of the DBs. He knew everything about each and i was floored when I heard the rationale of interst in why this choice. I'm sure it's archivable on www.clevelandborwns.com. Understanding Mangini's starting point in the coaching realms - it was with the DBs.

I think Golfer nails it about the time frame required. What alot of our fans don't get when they want 20 years of frustration fixed within 1 season of a new coach is there's talent deprivation supported by unenthused and overpaid FAs that do nothing but offer the franchise depreciation. NOW, when we lose D'Qwell Jackson, Shaun Rogers, Dave Zastudil and we're reading about other potential IR candidates while 2 starting WRs have dome aches - it's not Easy Street. If that's not enough, we're on our 3rd string QB. I've seen THE Bill Belicick under the same circumstances and we weren't in every game Todd Philcox QBed. Come to think of it, I've seen Butch Davis and RAC under the same circumstances and we didn't have chances to win in the 4th quarter. Same with with Chris Palmer.

Straightening out the inherited mess is gonna take a little more time. That said, I'm liking some of the newer faces in the last 2 years like: Hillis, Watson, Haden, Ward, Mack, Robinson, Benard, Roth, McCoy, Moore and some others... These guys aren't like the group in 2008 that went into the fetal position in the first quarter. These guys bust tail from whistle 1 to the last whistle. They play hard for this staff for the most part. I'm not convinced Eric Wright plays hard at all times so I'd like to see us Anthony Henry him into nickel/dime corner packages so he has fresh legs and a will to prove something when he is on the field.

I think the biggest difference I'm seeing in the likable newbies is the DESIRE to prove themselves. That means easier to coach at the exchange value of playing harder for the coaches giving them the opportunity. Harrison and Hillis look like they showed up for this season with 2 completely different mind sets. Harrison looked like he felt he had nothing to prove while Hillis keeps running like every carry could be his last. Last year Matt Roth showed up with something to prove and so did Marcus Benard when he got his first opportunity.

We HAVE to acknowledge the difference between the Rooneys hiring the right people all the time vrs the Lerners hiring the wrong people for nearly a decade before they hired Mangini, Holmgren and Heckert. That difference is Pitt could win with a 40 year old Charlie Batch or Byron's Leftshoe. Deeper teams like that have a HUGE margin of error comforting whoever plays QB. We're at the point where we might need to go reality television to find 2-3 healthy WRs for next week. Meanwhile, we're down to 1 healthy Qb and he's a wide-eyed rookie. We NEVER knew who's gonna be healthy enough to start on the right side of the oline. Our dline has had injuries all across the front but who's quitting there? We have to be FAIR to the only guy that was interested in taking on this challenge in Cleveland. They weren't exactly beating down the door to come here when Mangini was the only guy standing in line for an interview.
- Tom F.