 @ClevelandFrowns desperately tries to instill common sense in Browns fan.
Good luck. Quote: Tuesday, December 14, 2010
This Week in Second Guessing: Tony Grossi and Chris Fedor Dive for the Darkness
Anyone who wonders why newspapers are dying must not be paying much attention to Tony Grossi and his coverage of the Cleveland Browns in the Plain Dealer. How many ways can we say hooray for the internet?
If you're keeping up, you'll remember that last week we challenged to Grossi to explain his stated belief that the decision to retain a coach of a Cleveland Browns team that's vastly improved from the coach's first year to his second "isn't so cut and dried." We hoped that Tony could take a break from issuing inflammatory tweets and dropping treacherous quotes from mouthbreathing "readers" into his mailbag columns to try writing a piece to shed light on this obviously hugely pertinent issue that he keeps telling us is so complicated.
Well, Grossi answered the call. Sort of. In his weekly mailbag column, of course. Here's Michael Spitale of Galena, Ohio, with some good questions:Hey, Tony: Do you realize you have become synonomous on blogs, tweets, chat rooms and just general conversation amongst fans as Mr. Anti Mangini in Cleveland? What is it that has rubbed you so wrong about him? You always used to preach defense wins in the AFC North, and running game is key in the cold. You preached beating Pittsburgh was the key to everything in this division and you even admit Mangini does not fear them and gets the rivalry ... and yet you speak of West Coast O and going down the field fast a la Holmgren ball admitting all along Holmgren has zerointerest in D as a coach. Why do you long for change so much? Is the lure of Holmgren coaching (and running the entire organization at the same time) that exciting to you? -- Michael Spitale, Galena, Ohio Here's Tony's unsurprising but still amazing reply:Hey, Michael: I think I have been tough on Mangini, but not unfair. I have said I think he can coach but I don't know if he can win. By that I mean this: He has well-reasoned answers for everything he does and talks a good game and espouses all the right things in a football team. But can he take the necessary risks in offensive football to win? Can he stomach a quarterback throwing three interceptions and still allow him to throw in the fourth quarter with a game on the line? Can he effectively manage a super-talented player who may have character issues? His first season was an abject disaster until the final four games. His authority was taken away in his second season and he reacted favorably. He has embraced the opportunity to learn under Mike Holmgren and I believe he has become a better coach. The only question that's pertinent is this: Is Mangini the coach that can take the team to the Super Bowl? That's all that matters. Hey Tony, is there a football coach on earth who would have survived the last two years in Cleveland on these criteria?
You have to step back to really appreciate the stunning lack of objectivity here:"Can he take the necessary risks in offensive football to win? Can he stomach a quarterback throwing three interceptions and still allow him to throw in the fourth quarter with a game on the line?" Maybe next week Tony can fill us in on the winning percentage of teams whose quarterbacks throw three interceptions in one game. Anyway, it's a hell of a start. If a team loses a game where its quarterback throws three picks, it's because of the decisions made by the coach in the fourth quarter. All the better if you can apply this standard to a coach who's been working with the Quinn/Anderson/Delhomme/Wallace/McCoy quintet (forget about the receivers). How can Tony lose here?
Relatedly, Tony asks: "Can [Mangini] effectively manage a super-talented player who may have character issues?" There aren't too many super-talented players around in Cleveland, so this is another really good one. It's probably not a stretch to assume that Tony wants us to believe that the reason there aren't super-talented players here is because Mangini can't manage them effectively. Ignore that some teams seem to thrive precisely because they don't tolerate unchecked personality disorders, because nobody can stop Tony from second-guessing the decision to cut Braylon Edwards. It's another one that's impossible to argue.
But we do know that Mangini managed seven Pro-Bowlers in New York effectively enough, one of whom was at the time one of the very most talented players in the league, DT Kris Jenkins, who had the following to say about Mangini right before he was hired by the Browns:"I think [the Browns would be] getting a great man, a great individual. I think he's a young coach who's growing and learning every day. I think as he keeps progressing, he's going to get better. I guess to Eric, we've had plenty of discussions and man-to-man I think he's one of the best men that I've met in my time on Earth. He's really a great guy. I wish him all the best." Suppose what Grossi really wants to know is whether Coach can learn how to bend over for a sociopath who's bent on undermining his authority, which is actually really interesting when you think about it.
Anyway, moving on. Grossi again:"I think [Mangini] can coach but I don't know if he can win. . . . His first season was an abject disaster until the final four games." Leaving aside 9 and 10 win seasons in New York, there's simply no such thing as "rebuilding" on this logic, which also happens to be just the kind of logic that would be guaranteed to yield a decade of NFL incompetence marked by an endless cycle of failed mini-rebuilds like, HEY!
Anyway, it doesn't matter that you took over a team with a roster in tatters. It doesn't matter that Vegas had you penciled in for 5.5 wins. Because:"The only question that's pertinent is this: Is Mangini the coach that can take the team to the Super Bowl?" Boom. "The bottom line." "The only question that's pertinent" to Grossi, of course, is one that he hasn't even tried to answer. Unless he thinks that the reason Mangini can't ever win a Super Bowl is because he didn't do it in his first two seasons here, or in his third in New York with a broken-armed Brett Favre (or Kellen Clemens?). Or is it because Mangini hasn't won enough games where his quarterback threw three picks? Or is it because he cut Braylon Edwards?
We're left to guess why Mangini isn't the coach that can take the team to Super Bowls, because that's the end of Tony's analysis. We know what you're thinking. A human who wanted to analyze this issue with at least a shred of credibility would be required to at least mention the relative lack of talent on the Browns roster, the brutal 2010 schedule, the obvious improvement in week-to-week play from year one to year two, and all of that against the backdrop of a decade of organizational turmoil that preceded the head coach's arrival in town. But what a cockroach would do is run straight for the darkest corner as soon as the light goes on, a corner where nothing else but cockroaches can go, where the cockroaches can never be wrong.
What can you say?
The best you can probably say is that at least Grossi writes his crap down, unlike WKNR's Chris Fedor, who's happy to Tweet that Eric Mangini should be fired for Jon Gruden, but has a hard time explaining why. "Pull up the podcast," Fedor said. So we did. Um, here it is:I think Eric Mangini is doing a good job with what he has, and I think Mike Holmgren has a very difficult decision to make. But, to me, if it comes down to John Gruden and Eric Mangini, I'm taking John Gruden and I'm smiling. . . . Well, the thing is, I can close my eyes and I can picture John Gruden winning a Super Bowl here in Cleveland. I can't close my eyes and picture Eric Mangini winning one. I picture Eric Mangini getting to the playoffs, and being that tough, physical team but not taking that next step and going from a good team to a great team. That's just my feeling with Eric Mangini and the kind of philosophy that he wants to have and the kind of program that he wants to run. To me, to me, it's very difficult to do that nowadays in the NFL if you're not Bill Belichik. And I don't see Eric Mangini taking a step back and taking on the kind of players and personalities that it would take and being able to handle those kinds of personalities to take that kind of step and at the same time some of the decisions he makes on the side lines when the bullets are flying have me scratching my head and the fact that he doesn't always make the kind of adjustments that he needs to make when his game plan runs out. I understand that you want stability as well, but stability for the sake of stability is not the right reason to have stability. Just because the Browns have been dysfunctional since they came back in 1999 doesn't mean you that you have to stick with Eric Mangini just so that you can stay stable. You stay stable with the right guy. To me Eric Mangini's just not the right guy. John Gruden, to me, is a better coach, and I understand what you're saying, Aaron, in terms of progress. I'm not discounting the progress at all - I think Eric Mangini has done a good job, and they're going in the right direction. But I think that if they want to take that next step, and that big step, and get to the Superbowl, I think they need another coach. I'm not sittin' here sayin' that John Gruden is the best coach in America. I don't think that at all. I just think he's a better option than Eric Mangini. And the other reason that I like Gruden is because he fits. When you talk about Mike Holmgren, Tom Heckert, he fits, he belongs. You're talking about Mike Holmgren, Tom Heckert, Eric Mangini, it doesn't necessarily fit. [Tony Rizzo: That doesn't guarantee you wins though.] It doesn't, you're right, it does not, and I completely understand that, and, it would be a roll of the dice. But I think it's worth it, because I think that John Gruden can be the guy that takes this roster to next level. Of course.
Second-guess the coach's ability to make in-game adjustments with knives in a gun fight? Check. Blame the coach for refusing to allow sociopaths to dominate his locker room? Check. Unprovable speculation that a fifth-year head coach can't ever win a Super Bowl because he hasn't won one yet? Check.
Bonus points to Fedor for adding that Gruden "just fits," or "belongs." Which is why we're supposed to start over yet again in Cleveland by firing another young coach, one who was the protege of the greatest NFL coach of our time, only two years into a massive rebuilding project where his team's made obvious strides, for a guy who won one Super Bowl with Tony Dungy's ready-made contender before fizzling out with only one more 9+ win season in the six after that (including 4-12 and 5-11). Fedor has no reservations about this because he just knows what fits. He knows because he just closes his eyes and sees it.
It's the definition of making perfect the enemy of good.
So is anyone suprised to read Grossi on Gruden in the same mailbag column linked above?:I have always considered Gruden an ideal candidate to be Browns coach. My opinion goes back long before Mangini got the job. I said it to a league executive 10 years ago. Gruden's Ohio roots and his deep appreciation for Browns tradition and the hard-nosed, physical play required in the Midwest would make him a worthy candidate. Maybe if Mangini was from Ohio Grossi would feel differently. Or if Mangini appreciated hard-nosed physical play. Wait, Browns tradition. The mural! We'll add these to our list of guesses.
Anyway, it would be amazing if it wasn't just science. The darkest corners are the darkest corners, and they're exactly where cockroaches go when the lights go on.
----------
Thankfully, there's plenty of room on the internet for the rest of us, and it's really not a lonely place. Here's a good thread on Grossi's sad agenda at the OBR boards.
----------
Last night on WKYC's "The Point After," Grossi reminded viewers that he said that he believed that Mangini had to close the season with a five game win streak to keep his job, and said that he was standing by his prediction. "He's done," Grossi said.
This is the most highly-compensated NFL beat writer at Cleveland's flagship newspaper, and we'll write about it every week.
Like John Floridis of Missoula, Montana (really, amazingly) says: Hey, Tony: In our culture, if an untruth is repeated enough times, it becomes the truth, regardless of, oh say, the facts. More on Grossi's "Point After" prediction here, along with a note on "Browns fans' reluctance to embrace" all-time great NFL coach Bill Belichick when he was here in Cleveland.
----------
Finally, another reminder that the Browns have been favored to win only two of the thirteen games they've played in so far this season. That's by people who put real money on the games instead of just run their mouths about them.
And we'll ask one more time, is there anybody in town who doesn't work for the Plain Dealer, WKNR, etc., who won't be extremely fired up for Year Three of the Mangini Era in Cleveland next season?
Wish we had time to address this week's Seneca Fan Club here, but we're buried in salt. If someone wants something good to do today, the comments are wide open here.
Hope everyone has a decent one.
----------
*Standard disclaimer applies. We don't think these people are actually cockroaches, but cockroaches are exactly what people behave like when they're hung up on bad ideas.Labels: Browns, Dumb Dumb Dumb, Eric Mangini, NFL, Real Facts of Science, The Plain Dealer, Tony Grossi, WKNR
posted by Cleveland Frowns at 12:07 PM 44 Comments Links to this post  |
__________________  |
It seems that you are unregistered. Please register with us by clicking here.
12-15-2010
Linear Mode
