Eric Mangini says Cleveland Browns are in a place to win consistently

[nickers]

Originally Posted by hiwaygal

The same thing could be said for a rookie HC. But that may be exactly where we're headed, and that's okay I guess. But we sure as shit are starting another 2-3 year rebuilding process with that. THAT'S why some of us are upset about Mangini being fired.

We're not acting like he's Lombardi or Brown or even BB for that matter. All we're saying is that we got rid of someone we consider a solid coach for an unknown.

Well until the process is complete we still dont know who the coach is and Its a bit unfair of course to make assumptions until a canidate is chosen. Id be worried if we hired Morhingweg or Mularkey considering thier past records...However Atl struck gold with an unknown like Mike Smith...so it all remains to be seen. But sooner or later the cycle of mediocrity and below has to change....God we all can only hope!

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by golfer704u

Exactly. Only one side of this arguement in being two faced in their expectations.

I'm driving so I will respond to your posts later, but please tell ms where I said expectations go down, or the new HC gets a break on W-L.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by golfer704u

But now that Mangini is fired, the new coach doesn't have to win with BETTER PLAYERS from the next FA and Draft and BETTER assistant coaches?? How do you justify your own contradiction??

Originally Posted by golfer704u

So now that Mangini is gone, you don't think the team is as good as you harped on all season????

Either you are not reading what I am writing, or you're confusing me with someone else. Because I have never said anything about the next HC, what his expectations are going to be, or that he gets time to install a system over some arbitrary period of time. In fact, I don't think I have mentioned anything about the next head coach at all other than to opine on who it may be, or who I would like it to be. What exactly have I contradicted? Or maybe a better question, what did you misunderstand

Originally Posted by golfer704u

If this team lost this year becaus of bad coaching. Then next years team should win more games that this years did. And since you are getting an influx of more Heckert draft picks. Why shouldn't we expect an improvement of 3 games? that's not a lot considering how bad you said these coaches are.

I don't think I disagree with any of that. So what's the problem?

Originally Posted by golfer704u

As for firing a coordinator. Do you know how many many many times, Head Coaches in the NFL and College have been forced to fire assistant coaches as part of keeping thier jobs or moving forward?

Name me some successful head coaches who have had there offensive and/or defensive systems chosen for them, and tell me how successful they were. It does not happen often, it is not smart, and rarely does it work well. WTF does Mangini know about the WCO, and how is he supposed to coach it if he cannot understand its nuances? We just gonna let the OC run everything on O and tell Mangini to get lost, don't come around the huddle, I got this? Forcing an offense down the throat of the HC is a recipe for disaster, and a one way ticket to Lame Duckville.

Originally Posted by hiwaygal

I feel like giving Mangini one more year would have satisfied his supporters that he either was worth keeping or not, and not put the team in a position of changing coaches and changing expectations again. At the end of next year if we weren't better (again, I say significantly better, 8-10 wins) then he is fired. No questions asked.

Ah yes, back to wins and losses again are we?

So you think we should have soothed the feelings of the Mangini supporters by giving him his 3rd season? And we should have picked 8-10 wins as the criteria? Which is it - 8 wins, 9 wins, or 10 wins? And since we are talking about wins and losses, why is not reaching 8-10 wins a good benchmark for firing in 2011, but back to back 5-win seasons is a preposterous reason for a firing? And if I am going into 2011 with a set record in mind, or else the coach is fired, why not just fire him now since there isn't a lot of confidence in keeping him beyond 2011? See this is called Lame Duck. You've now painted your HC into a corner because you don't have long term faith in him.

See what I mean? You have now decided that the record play a part. If you are Mike Holmgren, it is not THE part, it could be you didn't see the growth in certain areas, or you disagreed with him philosophically during the weeks and months of practice, it could be you disagreed with how he got the team ready to play certain weeks of the season, and you predicted the outcome because of this knowledge. It could be that after watching Mangini very, very closely for a full year that you didn't think his approach was the way to build a team into a long term winner, and that while his building blocks certainly have some degree of influence on growth and moving in the right direction, eventually the man was not making the right moves with the 45 man roster, or playcalling, or strategy, or even getting the team ready to play on Sunday.

After all, if you are Mike Holmgren, you have seen up close and personal how this regime building a losing team works. You know what it is when you see it, and you know what it isn't.

But by all means, take swipes at those who agreed with Holmgren. Seems now that since I tried to look at this from Holmgren's perspective that I have been labeled a Mangini hater. Shit I have tried to explain over and over that I like Eric, but it seems sarcasm and bitterness have ruled the day here by those who misunderstand the reasoning behind the firing. It was more than the record people.

Originally Posted by hiwaygal

Point being, Holmgren is going to have influence on the coordinators, so why couldn't he have it with Mangini?

Two different systems, two different philosophies, two different languages, two different coaching pools, and two different circles of influence. First, I don't think the job of the president is to really tell the HC that his offense sucks, run the one that I want to run. He could tell him to change it, get rid of the OC and find a better one.

But switching philosophies, which is what I think Mike wants to do with Colt (easier on the QB, if taught by the right guys) is a recipe for disaster, again. It's about as common as asking BB to run the 4-3. The coach runs what he wants to run, he just may have to hire different people. But change philosophies? That is crazy talk.

Originally Posted by TheBestPlayersPlay

Really 8 - 9 wins is being too fair. I expected 8-9 wins next year out of Mangini ...this next coach we bring in is supposed to be a whole lot better.

With the talent he has on this team, and the opportunities that presented themselves on game day, he should have had 7-8 wins this season. But you know how sheep are, once one starts yapping about something they all copy cat the same yapping.

1...2....3, The team was hurt, the schedule was hard, the players sucked....rinse.....repeat.

Originally Posted by TheBestPlayersPlay

Although if I took the Mangini haters stance, I would expect no less than 10 wins, because it's all about the W/L column and winning NOW. No excuses

Ah yes, this is how Shep used to operate. Try and separate the board into factions by demonizing one part, and rallying the other. Yes, I have to admit you have learned this boring shit very well. Next you will pull out the hyperbole card and twist words and start a board war where people who don't actually dislike Eric Mangini will have to defend themselves against accusations that are untrue. Oh wait, you're kind of doing that right now, aren't you..........

Well when you get over your temper tantrums, and decide to put on your big girl panties, I will be in the Adult Swim.

[nickers]

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

Either you are not reading what I am writing, or you're confusing me with someone else. Because I have never said anything about the next HC, what his expectations are going to be, or that he gets time to install a system over some arbitrary period of time. In fact, I don't think I have mentioned anything about the next head coach at all other than to opine on who it may be, or who I would like it to be. What exactly have I contradicted? Or maybe a better question, what did you misunderstand


I don't think I disagree with any of that. So what's the problem?


Name me some successful head coaches who have had there offensive and/or defensive systems chosen for them, and tell me how successful they were. It does not happen often, it is not smart, and rarely does it work well. WTF does Mangini know about the WCO, and how is he supposed to coach it if he cannot understand its nuances? We just gonna let the OC run everything on O and tell Mangini to get lost, don't come around the huddle, I got this? Forcing an offense down the throat of the HC is a recipe for disaster, and a one way ticket to Lame Duckville.



Ah yes, back to wins and losses again are we?

So you think we should have soothed the feelings of the Mangini supporters by giving him his 3rd season? And we should have picked 8-10 wins as the criteria? Which is it - 8 wins, 9 wins, or 10 wins? And since we are talking about wins and losses, why is not reaching 8-10 wins a good benchmark for firing in 2011, but back to back 5-win seasons is a preposterous reason for a firing? And if I am going into 2011 with a set record in mind, or else the coach is fired, why not just fire him now since there isn't a lot of confidence in keeping him beyond 2011? See this is called Lame Duck. You've now painted your HC into a corner because you don't have long term faith in him.

See what I mean? You have now decided that the record play a part. If you are Mike Holmgren, it is not THE part, it could be you didn't see the growth in certain areas, or you disagreed with him philosophically during the weeks and months of practice, it could be you disagreed with how he got the team ready to play certain weeks of the season, and you predicted the outcome because of this knowledge. It could be that after watching Mangini very, very closely for a full year that you didn't think his approach was the way to build a team into a long term winner, and that while his building blocks certainly have some degree of influence on growth and moving in the right direction, eventually the man was not making the right moves with the 45 man roster, or playcalling, or strategy, or even getting the team ready to play on Sunday.

After all, if you are Mike Holmgren, you have seen up close and personal how this regime building a losing team works. You know what it is when you see it, and you know what it isn't.

But by all means, take swipes at those who agreed with Holmgren. Seems now that since I tried to look at this from Holmgren's perspective that I have been labeled a Mangini hater. Shit I have tried to explain over and over that I like Eric, but it seems sarcasm and bitterness have ruled the day here by those who misunderstand the reasoning behind the firing. It was more than the record people.


Two different systems, two different philosophies, two different languages, two different coaching pools, and two different circles of influence. First, I don't think the job of the president is to really tell the HC that his offense sucks, run the one that I want to run. He could tell him to change it, get rid of the OC and find a better one.

But switching philosophies, which is what I think Mike wants to do with Colt (easier on the QB, if taught by the right guys) is a recipe for disaster, again. It's about as common as asking BB to run the 4-3. The coach runs what he wants to run, he just may have to hire different people. But change philosophies? That is crazy talk.


With the talent he has on this team, and the opportunities that presented themselves on game day, he should have had 7-8 wins this season. But you know how sheep are, once one starts yapping about something they all copy cat the same yapping.

1...2....3, The team was hurt, the schedule was hard, the players sucked....rinse.....repeat.



Ah yes, this is how Shep used to operate. Try and separate the board into factions by demonizing one part, and rallying the other. Yes, I have to admit you have learned this boring shit very well. Next you will pull out the hyperbole card and twist words and start a board war where people who don't actually dislike Eric Mangini will have to defend themselves against accusations that are untrue. Oh wait, you're kind of doing that right now, aren't you..........

Well when you get over your temper tantrums, and decide to put on your big girl panties, I will be in the Adult Swim.

Great post Veg...you summarized a bit of what I was trying to convey in part,only you did it much better than I did +10!

[Riffer X]

Look man, a lot of hardcore Browns fans really liked what they saw with Eric Mangini and the results he was getting with this team. Not just on this board, but around town and in the media outlets (not most of the media themselves) with callers on talk shows, etc.

Here's the bottom line with these supposed divisions going on right now. For those that wanted EM out for whatever the reasons, what do you suppose the expectations are for next year's team with a new staff? Call it now, make it known what victory total suffices, cuz the schedule is not going to be near what it was this year. This team easily could have won 3 to 4 more games with even adequate QB play, granted they should have lost the Carolina game. Upon reflection of that near loss to Carolina, was EM the one responsible for letting Jimmy Friggen Fucknuts pull shit out his ass at the end to even be in position fot he game winning FG?

Veg, all I heard was how inexcusable it was to lose to Cincy and Buffalo, both on the road. A little reminder, Cincy was picked by most to win the division this year and won it last year. They went into a major funk after the Browns beat them at 2-1, and it took them all season to get out of it. My opinion is they put PGL's girlfriend and TO on the bench, those guys messed up their passing game all year. Anyway, point is that Tucky doesn't suck, which would be evidenced by their whacking the shit out of San Diego the next week 34-20 when the Chargers were playing for the playoffs.

Buffalo lost how many games by 3 points or less? Sure they quit down the stretch, but this is a team that also had Pitt beat, but of course the dumbshit Braylonned it and Pitt got lucky once again in OT.

It's not always cut and dry with wins and losses. What kind of schedule did the Lions play this year again? We went through 3 QB's, and two of them sucked ass. Talk about another winnable game, how about Atlanta? Does anybody remember the score was 13-10 when Jake decided to play Santa again with the pick sixes? But, before that, he overthrew a wide open Cribbs for six on a deep post route.

We all know what happened weeks one and two, and we also know that both those squads were much, much better than anticipated. Those should have been victories, both of them. Hillis and Jake blew the TB game and Wallace blew the KC game, plain and simple. Shit, at Bmore Hillis ran for almost a buck fifty and that game was hugely winnable.

My point is I can go back through the season and pull up a few plays here and there that cost this team, and several of them were directly related to the QB position. Not to mention I have seen Fuge called average on here and that is just flat out bullshit, he was easily having the best season we have had out of a backer since Jamir Miller.

We got crushed on the right side of the oline which completely screwed us up offensively, there is absolutely NO ARGUING that. Things got thin down the stretch, that happens in the NFL to teams without a ton of depth, period.

Here's the thing, where are they going from here? Hell, we don't even know what kind of defense or offense we are going to be playing next year yet. I have no idea why people are even bothering to speculate on the draft, none of it matters until the coaches are named and the schemes are in place. Then there is the little issue of the CBA getting settled, which is going to affect all the available FA's out there and quite possibly a lot of time to implement our new schemes with OTA's and offseason workouts. That stuff is going to be dramatically cut even if they strike a deal quickly, which means even less time to institute the new schemes and get all the new players on the same page. I reckon there will be around a 30 to 40% roster turnover from last year, and that may be on the light side.

We may be looking at Marty Fucking Mohninwheg as our new coach, let that resonate a little bit. We fired Eric Mangini for possibly MM. You think fans and the media are bitching now? Wait until good ole Smarty Jr goes about 4-12 with a team that has no identity at all. Not saying this happens or that I want it too, but it could get way uglier than what we saw this year, I guarantee that.

They could have made it work with a new offensive philosophy and keeping EM around, I don't see it as impossible. Bottom line is it was never presented to EM or offered. If it had been, nobody knows how it could have worked out. My guess is he would have been receptive to it if it meant staying on as the Browns coach.

Oh, and a little off topic here, but WTF is Gil Haskell getting paid for on this team? Can someone please explain to me that one? Right now, it reeks of Walrus giving his friend a job (after dumping Jim Brown and his salary). Something to think about when the hiring of a head coach finally comes.

[hiwaygal]

ALL HAIL KING RIFFER!!!

Seriously, Rif, that was great!

Originally Posted by Riffer X

Oh, and a little off topic here, but WTF is Gil Haskell getting paid for on this team? Can someone please explain to me that one? Right now, it reeks of Walrus giving his friend a job (after dumping Jim Brown and his salary). Something to think about when the hiring of a head coach finally comes.

And I asked the same question the other day...still don't have an answer.

[hiwaygal]

Vegas - I don't think you are a Mangini hater. I think you're a Rob Ryan hater!! LOL

Seriously, I see your point. I just disagree.

You talk about "Mangini supporters" forcing a lame duck coach tenure by setting up goals and expectations. But that is done by every fan every year and for every change. I'm sure the coaches, executives, and owners do the same thing. It's just the nature of the game.

I'm starting to believe that Mangini was a lame duck coach this year. There was nothing he could do to keep his job beyond this year. Looking back, Holmgren should have just fired him last season. It would have made more sense then, and we wouldn't be starting over. Again.

[TheBestPlayersPlay]

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

With the talent he has on this team, and the opportunities that presented themselves on game day, he should have had 7-8 wins this season. But you know how sheep are, once one starts yapping about something they all copy cat the same yapping.

Yep. We sure do have a talented team.

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

I don't think I disagree with any of that. So what's the problem?

So here is Vegas the guy who had been slamming Eric Mangini and calling for his head due to not winning 8 games this past season, because the W/L column is the bottom line ....calling for 8 wins NEXT SEASON. lmfao Wow. I thought we wanted improvement? If we should have won 8 games this past season, but didn't due to our inept coach, how is 8 games next season improvement?

Yap yap yap.

[kydawgfan]

And i have said all year that this team is in a position to win consistently if it had a real coaching staff...
Just 10 days ago faggini said "now this team has to learn to win consistently"
But now its suddenly in a position to win consistently..
Fact is mangini's work was done last year and all this team needed was a coach that knows how to win to win consistently...
Good riddance mangini was a waste of time beyond last season..

[nickers]

Originally Posted by kydawgfan

And i have said all year that this team is in a position to win consistently if it had a real coaching staff...
Just 10 days ago faggini said "now this team has to learn to win consistently"
But now its suddenly in a position to win consistently..
Fact is mangini's work was done last year and all this team needed was a coach that knows how to win to win consistently...
Good riddance mangini was a waste of time beyond last season..

Shhhh!! your not allowed to have an opninion that doesnt conform to the Mangini Lovers Alliance here...You'll be accused of not knowing football.....and being a Mangini hater!

[Vegasdogg]

Good post Riffer, it is easy and understandable to know where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by Riffer X

Here's the bottom line with these supposed divisions going on right now. For those that wanted EM out for whatever the reasons, what do you suppose the expectations are for next year's team with a new staff? Call it now, make it known what victory total suffices, cuz the schedule is not going to be near what it was this year. This team easily could have won 3 to 4 more games with even adequate QB play, granted they should have lost the Carolina game. Upon reflection of that near loss to Carolina, was EM the one responsible for letting Jimmy Friggen Fucknuts pull shit out his ass at the end to even be in position fot he game winning FG?

We disagree on a fundamental point - coaching. I watched every game with you guys on chat via streaming (and the only game this year on TV was the last one, which got cut at halftime for OAK-KC) so it is not like I developed my opinions by reading the paper and this forum. I watched very single game.

And what I saw was a team that was too mechanical, too studious, too stiff, and not nearly as competitive as I thought they could be. It is no secret I didn't like the game plans (a majority of the time) of the OC and DC. There was never a fire, an intensity, an urgency, from anyone on either side of the ball. Motivation is very important in team sports, and that all starts with the coaches. We never really started the season or games very well out of the gate with Mangini coached teams. It was like we were in a wait and see approach, and then didn't do squat to adjust to what we saw. I kept wondering "if we are waiting to make a counter move, when is it coming?"

We never took it to teams. I personally think that his "game plan specific" approach, while admirable, did not produce good game day production, nor did the team grasp it efficiently enough implement the game plan. As I have said before, a couple players mentioned that they had pages and pages of plays they had to study, but by Friday they threw out a majority of them. That is too studious, a waste of time and focus, and I think set back a lot of the young skill players. My opinion is we should have developed plays we were good at instead of throwing them out every week and starting over. But that is just me, and my opinion. Not based in any more facts than what anyone else has to say. Game plan specific is fine when you come to the game with bread and butter plays. I don't feel we had that mentality. Anyone care to tell me what the bread and butter plays were?

Shit without Peyton Hillis we would have won 2 games this season. That player WAS the offense, along with Ben Watson.

Also, regarding intensity, are any of you seriously going to tell me this team played with the kind of intensity needed to win more than 5 games in 2010? Were they positioned on offense and defense to be aggressive, to take the game to the opponent, to dictate the tempo and intensity, and to come out amped up at the beginning of games? Well, I don't think they were.

That is coaching.

Schematically and strategically, I fully believe - and I understand many of you do not - that better coaching could have gotten more out of the WR's, better playcalling could have taken better advantage of Robo and Momass. Everyone talked about how these two could not get open. I mean WTF man, it could NOT be because of the scheme and strategy of the OC? No way? Absolutely not?

See this is what I don't understand at all from some of you guys - you talk about getting rid of the OC, of changing the offense, of Mangini probably being ok with changing OC's, yet in the same breath you talk about the talent being horrible, that the WR's could not get separation, they were too slow, etc... Which is it - we had poor players or a poor OC? Why do you need to get rid of the OC if the players weren't good enough? Something has to give here - the WR's sucked or the OC sucked? You cannot say both, because you don't know what better coaching could have done. Plain and simple, if you think the OC sucked, than you cannot place equal blame on the players.

And WTF is it with Daboll not recognizing his RT sucks, so maybe give him a little help? And I am not just talking about moving a TE over to that side. I am talking about scheme and strategy and playcalling. Everyone wants to talk about getting rid of the OC, but of course the talent was bad. Yes I saw the despicable Bull Fighter technique of St. Clair. But I saw this last season as well, so why is he on the team?

Anyway, I have decided this offseason to take a stance that coaching was to blame for some of our ills. I may not do a good job putting it on paper yet but it is a work in progress. A lot of you are going to point out piss poor talent at certain positions, and I would be at a disadvantage to prove you wrong -- today. But what happens if a new coach and system takes better advantage of these guys? TBPP mentioned once that Daboll's system relies on the deep ball and a speedy player outside. What? WTF are we running this offense for then? Stupid.

I think we did not develop or use our WR's correctly. I think it was dumb to dump Jerome Harrison, I think it was foolish to play Jamal Lewis over Jerome last season, just like I feel it was foolish to play Eric Wright over Joe Haden early in the season. I think when healthy Seneca Wallace was a better option over Jake Delhomme. I think whatever system Eric Mangini used to determine his 45 man roster left me confused. I think he could have gotten more out of a mediocre roster, I think he could have done a better job developing young players, and I most certainly question whether there are more players that should have been playing that were not.

And what does "gotten more" mean? It means we don't produce 6 TO's vs JAX and produce 3 points, and lose on a 75 yard screen play. It means we don't come out flat vs CIN and BUF and lose cold weather games that Eric said his team will be good at. That is 3 games right there, and is an 8-8 record.

All in all I like Eric Mangini and what he stands for. It is not easy to come into this situation and turn things around quickly. But I have a feeling he had some shortcomings as a head coach, and as an evaluator of coaches and players, that Holmgren just did not feel he had the time or patience to see Eric correct.

I think Holmgren looked at how the team prepares every week (we didn't see that) and saw the game plans, and saw the installation of these game plans, and decided hey if it works they can stay. But this is not how I think a team should prepare for Sunday.

Quick turnarounds? 10 wins? High expectations? No. But lack of intensity, poor decision making on the 45 man roster, ill-advised game planning, and overall poor execution of his team week to week is why Mangini is gone.

And no, he is not to blame for everything, be he is accountable. I get the feeling many here do not think he should be accountable.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by TheBestPlayersPlay

So here is Vegas the guy who had been slamming Eric Mangini and calling for his head due to not winning 8 games this past season, because the W/L column is the bottom line ....calling for 8 wins NEXT SEASON. lmfao Wow. I thought we wanted improvement? If we should have won 8 games this past season, but didn't due to our inept coach, how is 8 games next season improvement? Yap yap yap.

WTF are you talking about dude? How do you get where I called for ANY wins next season. Please tell me where I said that.

Come on I want to see this.......