Dawgs By Nature

I hate this. See my comments from another thread:

He moved the Jets to a 3-4 just as Crennel did in Cleveland, and had arguably LESS success defensively. No one hear thinks Crennel fulfilled the promise of the illustrious Belichick School for Defensive Geniuses.

Take a look at the defensive efficiency measures for Cleveland and NYJ from 2005 to 2008.
Year: Team Defensive DVOA NJY / CLE
2005: 0.6% / 5.4%
2006: 10.3% / 5.0%
2007: 10.9% / 7.6%
2008: 8.4% / 8.4%

Mangini’s defense has always sucked. Worse than Crennel’s.

Further, look at the defensive measures for New England.

2004: -11.2% Crennel’s last year
2005: 10.5% Mangini’s only year
2006: -8.4% Pees rookie year

The Pats’ D sucked in 2005, but bounced back fine in 2006 under a different rookie coordinator. Now, these measures don’t take into effect personnel, but they don’t speak well for Mangini as some sort of defensive guru.

Keep in mind, for those not familiar, that DVOA measures defensive efficiency, weighing heavily the most important stops, e.g. giving up 2 yards on 3rd and 3 is considered good, while giving up 2 yards on 3rd and 1 is considered bad.

Typically, DVOA ranges from -30% to 30, with 0 representing league average over a number of years. For offensive measures, a positive DVOA is good (because it represents offensive successful movement) and for defensive measures a positive DVOA is bad (for the same reason).

So, Mangini’s average of 9.87% is pretty bad – about 22nd out of 32 teams for 2008.

danvail - January 6, 2009 reply

One good sign is;

Jets – 41 sacks
Browns – 17 sacks

According to this article (wriiten a day before the Jets-Titans game), it looks like Mangini is creative rushing the passer. At least that is a good sign.

What’s the good of sacks if they don’t translate into an effective defense?

danvail - January 6, 2009 reply

More fun to watch?

Brad D - January 7, 2009 reply

Well we’re always complaining about lack of pressure on the QB, so if Mangini has better ways to rush the passer that’s a plus.

Honestly, a lot of people feel that way now, but they won’t if we give up 30 points per game.

I really don’t see how a coach could scheme to substantially increase the pressure on the QB yet at the same time the points given up by the defense substantially increases. Getting pressure on the QB should make our secondary much better because they won’t have to cover for so long; if you give a QB too much time to throw he can always find an open reciever no matter how great your secondary is.

That’s only true “in a vacuum”, when all other factors remain unchanged. In practice, other factors are affected. When you rush more guys, QBs get bigger windows downfield.

Look at this:

There is no statistically valid trend between sacks and points allowed. It does not exist. If you aren’t familiar with stats, realize that an R^2 value of 0.1954 means that the correlation is completely meaningless.

I’m all for a more aggressive defense in the vein of Pittsburgh, Baltimore, or the NY Giants, but Mangini’s 41 sacks are not indicative of that type of defense.

Mangini’s 41 sacks yielded 22.3 ppg, but Crennel’s 19 yielded only 21.9. Sorry guys, but this pipe dream of simply deciding to be more aggressive and then having Pitt’s defense is silly. We can blitz more, but it will only be effective with the right personnel and the right scheme.

Mangini, IMO, isn’t likely to get us either.

There is definately a downward trend in that graph, but that doesn’t imply causation — teams that get more sacks have better players, hence they give up less points. Of course I know that if you blitz more players you’re giving up something in other areas of the defense; I think everybody who knows anything about football realizes that. I think what people here want is a more agressive defense that can put pressure on the QB because we’re frustrated by watching all year when opposing QB’s have all day to throw. I don’t care what kind of defense you run, that’s not going to be successful.

I’m not arguing that Mangini will be any better than Crennel — I don’t know that. And you certainly can’t use one stat (like comparing sacks) to try to make that agrument. I just said that if Magnini will bring a more aggresive defense to the Browns, I’d be in favor of that. Of course we need better players to impliment that system.

By the way, I’m a high school math teacher so I know all about scatter plots and correlation. In fact, I even teach a stats class (although it’s very basic — I’m certainly not a statistics expert). Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to know that.

“team that get more sacks have better players”

Reread the graph. Teams with better players aren’t likely to allow more points.

Huh? What are you trying to say? Teams with better players allow less points — of course! I don’t need a graph to tell me that.

There is definately a downward trend in that graph, but that doesn’t imply causation — teams that get more sacks have better players, hence they give up less points.

Three things:

1. Saying “there is definitely a downward trend in that graph” is blatantly ignoring the math. There is no correlation there. The R^2 value proves that the downward slope of that line as meaningless. You know enough about stats to know that.
2. You correctly point out that correlation does not imply causation, but are missing my larger point. You can’t even point to a correlation, let alone causation, in the relationship between sacks and points allowed. Correlation is easier to show than causation, and yet you can clearly see, there is no correlation.
3. “Teams that get more sacks have better players, hence give up less points.” That is not true. That graph proves it’s not true. There is no meaningful relationship between the number of sacks a team accumulates and the number of points it allows. You can clearly see that outlier (Dallas, the league leader in sacks) is right in the middle of the pack as far as points allowed goes. The third lowest ppg allowed is help by Baltimore, but they’re barely above league average in sacks.

I understand wanting to be more aggressive on D. I do. But that reference to Mangini’s sack totals implying it would improve our defense is something I take issue with. Mangini’s defenses in NY have NOT been effective. Maybe they’d be more entertaining, but personally I could tell you that my frustration with this year’s D is 95% losing, 5% boring defense.

All things being equal, if I got to choose between an aggressive defense that yields 20ppg and a conservative defense that yields 20 ppg, I’d pick aggressive. Every red blooded man would pick aggressive.

danvail, did you use defensive points allowed or total points. I doubt that it would change the results much, but how do you account for offense and special teams points allowed. i.e. pick-6’s and kick returns?

dvd1204 - January 7, 2009 reply

I sorted ESPN’s team defense points/game. Not sure if they separate that out, they probably don’t.

I really don’t see that improving our coefficient of determination up to a meaningful level. I might eat a hat if it did.

the numbers seem to disprove a sacks/ppg argument, but is sacks the best measure for pressuring the qb? i’d argue that qb’s feel pretty darn pressured by the ravens defense, but you point out that they’re barely above average in sack figures. hurries, knockdowns, etc., are imperfect, but if we’re looking at qb pressure as it relates to defensive performance, using sacks alone is limited.

as far as ppg goes (hugely flawed stat), don’t we have to consider dvd’s points as well as some degree of “bad” turnovers? like brett favre throwing 24 int’s…how many of those resulted in field position that lead directly to points? maybe that doesn’t change a whole lot, either.

I agree with both of your arguments. If an offense turn the ball over in the opposing team’s FG range, the defense gives up 0 yards, and the other team kicks a field goal…

Also if a team loses 9 to 6, they won’t have given up a lot of points but that doesn’t mean the defense played well and clearly means they lost the game.

I would rather give up 50 a game and be 16-0 than have a defense who doesn’t give up many points.

the numbers seem to disprove a sacks/ppg argument,

omg no. Danvail demonstrated that he can input data into columns in excel and use the chart function, not that sacks do not correlate strongly to ppg. He should’ve used a multiple regression – because he used a single regression, Excel was looking at ONLY SACKS as a predictor for points allowed. Please, dear god, do not think that his “analysis” means that sacks are insignificant in determining points allowed per game.

joeee - January 8, 2009 reply

fair enough…i appreciate the stats insight. it’s been a while since my econ stats class…

DontCallMeJoey - January 8, 2009 reply

We can blitz more, but it will only be effective with the right personnel and the right scheme.

Any scheme is right with the correct personnel.

gahnki - January 7, 2009 reply

danvail, I’m sorry, but you’re showing some extreme statistical ignorance here.

In the medical community – if you discover a certain predictive factor to a type of cancer, let’s say eating greasy foods as a predictor for colon cancer, if you can find an R2 of .02 – meaning 2% of colon cancer diagnoses can be correlated to greasy foods – you’d be a genius hero published all over the world. There is no such thing as absolute R2 value “strength” – it is all contextual.

So if you’re looking at something like points allowed, which has to do with a million predictive factors (time spent on d, quality of opponents, etc), an R^2 value of 20% for sacks is arguably strong.

joeee - January 8, 2009 reply

That’s what I thought. If you look at the scatter plot, there was a definite downward slope of the trend line so it certainly looked like there was a correlation. But it had been a while since I’ve talked about r^2 values so I wasn’t sure if he was speaking the truth.

As I said though, looking at sacks alone doesn’t tell you everything about getting pressure on the QB. You can do that in many other ways: forcing the QB to throw the ball away, to throw early to an unopen reciever, knocking him down, etc.

Buckeye Brad - January 8, 2009 reply

I think our secondary is better than the Jets’ except for maybe Revis. Our DBs usually catch the ball when they get their hands on it. If Mangini is able to bring the pressure (a BIG if) then our DBs should be able to capitalize on that pressure better than the Jets’ DBs did.

Note, I’m a little confused with this system. Kokonis is contracted with the Ravens, and the only way the Browns can hire him is if they give him full control as a full scale GM. If Mangini is calling all the shots, how is Kokonis going to be the total control GM he has to be? What an interesting situation. Of course, loopholes have been found before.

I just didn’t realize how much the Cleveland Browns really wanted to be the Baltimore Ravens.

Kokonis is contracted with the Ravens, and the only way the Browns can hire him is if they give him full control as a full scale GM. If Mangini is calling all the shots, how is Kokonis going to be the total control GM he has to be? What an interesting situation.

I was puzzled by that exact same thing. I’m guessing Mangini would have to have the “silent” command of power?

Chris Pokorny - January 6, 2009 reply

Right, Kokonis will get final say over everything under the condition that he quietly agrees never to use it. He takes it I guess because it’s more money and prestige and he can hope to increase his power base later. Since, as you said, he doesn’t seem to be in line for a GM job anywhere else, it’s a good bet for him.

I still think the whole thing is kind of ridiculous, but I’m opposed to letting the HC control everything in the first place.

“…but I’m opposed to letting the HC control everything in the first place.”

I don’t need a reason why, just curious; would that be in all cases, or just the large majority of the time?

Chris Pokorny - January 6, 2009 reply

pretty much all the time. Head Coaches that are excellent delegators get away with it (see Bill Bellichek), but that’s more like a loophole to the principle. He has full control, but usually opts not to use it.

actually, I realize I can answer that question better. I concede freely that there have been times where a HC that ran everything has worked effectively, I think it is always less likely to bring long-term success to a franchise than hiring a GM and letting him run everything.

i think lerner sits mangini and kokinis (or heckert) down and says “you guys make this work, or you’re both fired”. simple as that. you make the whole operation an equal responsibility, and the “final say” suddenly has a lot less teeth. someone may have it in letter, but they become a team on all things football…sort of the anti-Savage/Crennel set up

This seems a lot more like Mike Brown/Danny Ferry to me than Romeo/Phil.

Both guys like each other, have been linked to each other, have worked together previously and can say with a higher degree of believability that they share the same vision.

very similar to what i was thinking…and brown/ferry seem to have progressed pretty well (although, they do have that guy wearing 23 to help make them look good…)

DontCallMeJoey - January 8, 2009 reply

Wasn’t Pioli rumored to have made (virtually) impossible demands in his meeting?

I like the idea of “ratting” on NE, but that’s just cuz I still hate Beli.

JulioBernazard - January 6, 2009 reply

That rumor was widely understood to be a sabotage attempt by those still in Berea who would fear for their jobs if Pioli were hired.

Chris, I have to strongly disagree with your statement that this is a step in the right direction. This is an organization without a coherent philosophy or direction and concentrating all the power with a fairly young and inexperienced head coach will only worsen the existing problems. Reference this article from the NY Daily News about Mangini’s tenure in New York. Sounds largely like Crennel with an extra dose of secrecy and jerkiness.

I plan on expanding my thoughts into a full-blown post soon.

By step in the right direction, the only “step” taken would be towards less undermining. If the reports are true, then Kokinis/Mangini would at least be on the same page; the same could not be said for Savage/Crennel, at least at the end of this season. And, if we did go the route of Pioli/Mangini, there would be too much friction yet again, apparently.

Regarding the other steps, and probably the much more important ones as you seem to be ready to get into (managerial/philosophical/directional/etc), I offered no comment on that at this time ;)

Chris Pokorny - January 6, 2009 reply

I forget, did Savage hire Crennel or were they both hired consecutively?

ack, sorry, forgot not to use the subject line

Crennel was hired a month or so after Phil, but it was evident that Crennel was Lerner’s choice.

To me, this is a clear cut case of one step forward, two steps back.

Forward, head coach and GM are on the same page.

First step back, hiring lesser versions of both Crennel and Savage. Both were much more highly regarded than Mangini and especially Savage, collectively.

Second step back, not putting the roster in the GM’s hands. There are very few people that have demonstrated the capability of both coaching the team and making roster decisions. Mangini hasn’t really proven he can be effective at the former, let alone the latter.

danvail - January 6, 2009 reply

well, a HC has to be able to make roster decisions, as it’s the HC that works with each player every day. The GM makes personnel decisions, bringing in Free Agents and draft choices. In the cases where a personnel decision looks an awful lot like a roster decision, like a marquis free agent or a 1st round draft pick, the HC and the GM need to be on the same page. Otherwise you have disasters like the Raiders with Al Davis and Lane Kiffin, or the Jaguars over Byron Leftwich where a marquis player is not a player the HC really believes in.

i’d be interested to hear what you see as our options on the head coaching front. it figures that the browns are out looking for a new HC…the year before cowher, holmgren and shanahan are all likely to entertain new jobs. after cowher turned us down, i’m not sure there were many better choices than mangini. i won’t argue that he’s like diet 2005 crennel (although, he does have head-guy experience AND is not 60 years old), but i’m not convinced the browns had many options.

as to the second step back, i said it above, i think the football organization is going to be held in the collective hands of mangini and kokinis/heckert. they sink or swim together…regardless of who has what say in their contract, they’re going to be put in the arena together: if this team doesn’t improve, you’re both out.

We can only hire Kokinis if we give him full control of the roster. We have to at least give him that power in his contract. We are not putting the roster in the coaches hands simply because we hire him first.

I’ll start with the most obvious difference between Mangenius and Crennel: 2 winning seasons out of 3 for Mangini compared to 1 out of 4 for Crennel. The Jets probably would have made the playoffs had Favre not torn a tendon in his biceps.

Living in New York the most common complaint I hear from Jets fans is that Mangini’s offensive playcalling was weak…..the only problem with that notion is that Brian Schott called all of the plays.

Now the encouraging facts: Mangini significantly upgraded the Jets talent primarily with success in the draft in which he had a large say: Darrelle Revis, Mangold, D’brick, Dustin Keller were all successful 1st round picks.

Roger Dorn - January 6, 2009 reply

I am not against the hiring of Mangini.
I firmly believe the late season collapse of the Jets was due to Favre’s 2 TD, 9 INT showing over the last 5 games. It is hard for any team to overcome such QB ineptitude. During last year’s debacle, he had Pennington and Clemens do very poorly at the QB position. Again, hard to overcome.

After watching Mangini in action the last 3 years, he has great control of game management. He also had the Jets playing disciplined football, with the Jets tied for the 5th least penalties in the league. The Browns took their usual top-10 position.

Mike Tannenbaum has run the draft since Mangini has been with the team. He had very little to do with who they drafted.

On the other hand, he ran the defense, from my understanding, and his defense looked a lot like the Browns defense. Conservative with very little pass rush. This has been expounded upon by others in threads recently.

NickFantana,
Although Tannenbaum had the final say in personnel, according to Tony Grossi’s featured article currently on cleveland.com/browns, Mangini worked very closely w/ him in draft and free agent acquisitions. I think he had alot more than a little to do with who they drafted. Most coaches in the NFL have a very weighted opinion in who is drafted for their respective teams, and the Jets case is no different.

Who is Randy Lerner consulting or getting advice from? Mike Keenan (Team President)??? Hopefully, he is getting counseled from those with experience, i.e. the role Ron Wolfe had with us at one point (albeit briefly), but all signs point to him making the decision with some, but not enough outside input.

Last season, Ozzie Newsome put together an 8-man panel to decide who was the best fit as their next Head Coach. It’s only one-year, but Harbaugh seems to be the guy. I would love to see Randy do something similar.

As I understand it, Randy Lerner is a man alone in this process. He deserves all of the credit and all of the blame.

Oh, how I wish that I was reading a lot of positive posts. The only thing missing right now is Han Solo saying, “I got a bad feeling about this.” I really wanted to see the Browns build a good defense. (Even though they gave up 17 points or less in eight games this year, it still felt like they were barely hanging on even then.) But from what I’m reading here, things aren’t likely to improve defensively if Mangini comes on board.

Still, if the defense stays at least the same and the offense becomes something close to potent maybe that will be enough to at least get out of the cellar. (Baby steps to the playoffs.)

JustBob - January 6, 2009 reply

It seems that Lerner really had his mind made up with Mangini from the first hello. It appears from the outside looking in, Lerner wasn’t to keen on Pioli choice of Ferentz, and so plan B went into effect, and here we are. This is all speculation on my part, but IMO this is what shook down.
I am not a huge fan of Mangini, however there appears to be a lot of blame to go around in New York, not just him. The QB blew up, and Mangini appeared to be reluctant to call Favre on the carpet. His calling of the game in Seattle was brutal and why he did not use Leon Washington more was odd.
Well this is where we are at, and he looks like the new coach of the Browns unless he goes drinking with Charles Barkley.

Grockcubs - January 6, 2009 reply

What’s the big deal about drinkin with Chuck?

Oh, that…….

It was said that in Lerner’s first post-season press conference announcing the firing of Crennel, when he was informed Mangini was just fired, his eyes instantly lit up. It was love from the start.

Mangini must have really impressed Lerner in his interview because I thought it was almost certain Pioli would get the job. I really wanted him because it seemed like he had a good track record in New England and learned from the great organization they have there (I know, we could have said the same thing about Savage). I don’t know what happened with him, but it looks like he’s gone from the picture. Maybe Lerner didn’t like who he wanted to hire as coach.

I’m not sure what to think about Mangini; he’s had some success with the Jets but I don’t know if I want him running the whole organization, and that’s what seems to be happening with him bringing in Kokinis from Baltimore. Who the hell is that guy? I’d be worried about him and Mangini running the draft; that’s where the Browns need to improve. Savage did make his mistakes, but overall I think he did pretty well drafting.

One guy I wish Lerner would interview is Floyd Reese, the former GM of the Titans. He built a very good organization there and hired a great coach in Jeff Fisher. Why isn’t he getting more love? He has experience running a team, and I’d feel better with him than another new guy. And he may want to bring in Jim Schwartz, the Titans DC, as head coach and I wouldn’t mind that. I’d prefer both him and Pioli over Mangini/Kokinis.

Buckeye Brad - January 6, 2009 reply

Ron Hill is the guy that I can’t understand why he hasn’t gotten an interview at GM. Also, Doug Whaley should be a candidate, who would be stealing from the Steelers at the same time. As far as coaching, I’d again bring up Russ Grimm as a name that needs to be in the conversation.

Fundamentals - January 6, 2009 reply

I couldn’t agree more on Russ Grimm. At least an interview.

I think something is up with Russ Grimm. He has been interviewed for a couple of jobs now and he has gotten none.

Maybe a couple of bad interviews. Or a dumbass.

Probably a dumbass

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that he’s an OL coach. That, prior to the happenings of this year, would be a tough sell to the fans. “He can’t even be an OC and you want him as head coach?”, etc.

Fundamentals - January 7, 2009 reply

Good point.

Bernie19Kosar - January 7, 2009 reply

He didn’t make our OL any better when he was with the team. I’ll pass.

Who is Kokonis?

Kokonis just got a very big profile boost due to the Ravens 2008 Free Agent class. Kokonis was in charge of NFL free agent scouting and this year the Ravens got Jim Leonard, Fabian Washington, Lorenzo Neal, Willie Anderson, Brendan Ayanbadeyjo, and Frank Walker, all of whom have been major contributors to the team this year. It’s pretty impressive how the Ravens solved most of their depth issues all at once, but you do have to wonder how they got to those depth issues in the first place. Nevertheless, the Ravens have usually been pretty good at picking out free agents.

Not necessarily at the same positions, but those are exactly the type of players the Browns need — not only depth, but they aren’t breaking the bank and they are productive. Leonard, Neal, Anderson…we’re not just talking backups here, we’re talking significant contributors here.

Chris Pokorny - January 7, 2009 reply

doesn’t every team need significant contributors that don’t cost a lot of money?

math_geek - January 7, 2009 reply

Of course — I meant to imply that we need a guy who can actually acquire those types of players.

Chris Pokorny - January 7, 2009 reply

A new name has entered the picture: Eagles GM Tom Heckert. The PD is reporting that the Browns have recieved permission to interview him for the Browns’ GM job. He’s been with Philly for eight years and the GM since 2006. He doesn’t have final say over the 53-man roster — that lies with Andy Ried — so if the Browns give him that it would constitue a promotion. He is also head of the player personnel department, which include both pro and college scouting.

I haven’t heard his name mentioned at all until today, but I like this move. He’s a successful GM from a good organization. Also, he has a relationship with Giants’ DC Steve Spagnuolo (they worked together in Philly) who I think would be a good choice for head coach. And his father was a scout for the Browns in the 1980’s so he’s familiar with the city and team. I’m very interested in hearing more about him.

Buckeye Brad - January 6, 2009 reply

Tom Heckert has about as much say personnel-wise as Trip McCracken. Living in Philadelphia, the guy is never discussed, and is a glorified scout who became close with Eagles President Joe Banner.
An interview wouldn’t hurt though, especially if we are talking about him vs. Kokinis.

What is the deal with Mckay???? And I love the Floyd Reese suggestion.

I think that McKay took himself out of the running. I live and work here in Atlanta and was around the Falcons team headquarters in Flowery Branch a lot when McKay was the GM. A lot of his moves here were very expensive and very poor. This franchise was put in one of the worst situations ever due to his contracts and draft choices. McKay is still living off his days in Tampa.

My problem with McKay is that the Falcons had a decent GM in Ron Hill who got fired because he wasn’t a McKay guy, basically.

Fundamentals - January 7, 2009 reply

Yeah, i’ve heard McKay is more of a business guy than football guy, and he’s made some very bad football decisions.

I’m glad that we are not getting tunnel vision with Mangini and Kokinis. We need to turn over every rock.

Yup

I would be in favor of that hire, the Eagles are a consistent winner. Super Bowl not yet, but playoffs 7 of the last 9 years. I am sure there is a lot of blame and glory all around but Heckert has done a good job.

Grockcubs - January 7, 2009 reply

It is amazing Floyd Reese does not get enough love, jeez Lerner make sure you interview more people, this is a huge hire.

Grockcubs - January 7, 2009 reply

I think he is viewed as a d-bag in league circles. He has been actively trying to pimp himself out to clubs, even to clubs with GMs still in place. Also, the V Young pick is still fresh in peoples minds and regarded as a flop right now.

vegasbrown - January 7, 2009 reply

funny that floyd took the fall for vince, as i seem to remember that bud adams and fisher wanted vince, while floyd was more partial to jay cutler.

in any event, pacman and vince are tough to bounce back from as a GM.

The most relevant fact is that Lerner is making the hiring decsions. We are not privy to the details of each interview. I do not expect the quality of Lerner’s decisions to improve beyond history. It’s Lerner’s money and team. We must accept whatever level of efficiency Lerner provides. That’s the way Lerner wants it.

How much history does Lerner have? He’s only made one GM/coach hire. That’s quite a small sample size to make any judgements about his hiring abilities.

It’s not much history, but the methods Lerner is employing are making me nervous.

What, specifically, makes you nervous about what he is doing?

Brad D - January 7, 2009 reply

Yea, good question. I feel like people are a lot more privy to this process than I am based on the comments. Truth is we don’t know what has happened and won’t ever find out beyond speculation from our awesome beat writers

Roger Dorn - January 7, 2009 reply

I don’t like the idea of a HC coming before the GM. The GM should hire the coach. Why is Lerner interviewing coaches? Especially bad coaches? I don’t think anyone here denies that Lerner interviewed Mangini. No one else wants Mangini, and yet Lerner is supposedly heads over heels.

The best outcome/explanation that I can come up with is that Lerner is trying to use the media to bluff down some of Pioli’s demands. I don’t see that working. If it does, so be it. Good for Lerner. I’m just nervous that it won’t.

He was criticized, widely, for appearing to have shoved Crennel down Savage’s throat. Now, they’re both gone, and their ability to get along is cited as one of the reasons for their departure.

Lerner doesn’t seem to have learned from his past mistake. Get a GM. Let him put in place a structure, including a hc, and either succeed or fail.

Lerner visited NE and Philly after Butch Davis, to see how successful organizations are run. I think NE in general enamored him then (perhaps Mangini specifically), and it’s carrying over to today.

kwoog - January 7, 2009 reply

This notion that a GM must make the hiring decisions to be held accountable for the direction of the team, is so basic, I fail to see how this escapes Lerner. But then, if this is so obvious, why are our learned contributors to this blog failing to jump all over this point en masse? It truly give me pause. Are our contributors so naive to best business practices that Lerner’s money spraying machine blinds them and converts them to Kool-Aid guzzling homers?

So we’re all Kool-Aid guzzling homers? Because we’re not all jumping on Lerner for failure of the Savage/Crennel? (Although it didn’t fail entirely; this team is in much better shape than four years ago.)

You said you don’t have faith in Lerner because of his “history” of hiring decisions, yet you’re basing that on ONE GM/coaching hire. Making any judgements based on a sample size of one is foolish, so I’m skeptical of your opinions.

You use Lerner’s result to judge him. I use Lerner’s poor business process to judge him. You have not had the advantage of working within the Fortune 500 community for decades, but instead, work educating our youth. There is a thing or two you may learn from those of us in the private sector.

Shoot, Lerner’s gonna get 30 million extra dollars a year to hire Cowher from Cleveland City taxes b/c the Browns are “too big to fail”? I’d rather he rehire Butch.

kwoog - January 7, 2009 reply

I work in the private sector but agree with Brad

Roger Dorn - January 7, 2009 reply

Thanks. I know my opinion doesn’t count much since I’m just a dumb teacher.

You understand, as a teacher, that when a student produces the correct answer using an incorrect method, it’s not good enough and rarely repeatable. Lerner may have tremendous success hiring Mangini or other people. It’s not as repeatable a success if he fails to follow best business practices.
I might not have a clue about what Lerner is doing. Perhaps he secretly has chosen a GM that blessed the Mangini hiring. My observation is only based on what information appears available.
How will anyone judge a future GM if that GM was not allowed to select his head coach? So, if this new administration fails, Lerner fires everyone again and we start all over? This is absurd.

my issue with what you’re saying is that you have absolutely no idea about lerner’s process. zero. i don’t either, but it seems to me that he tried to hire a GM in pioli and that didn’t take…and at the same time he was doing the responsible thing by examining coaching possibilities. he’s found a coach that he believes advances the goals of his organization, who are you to criticize that process? you may disagree w/ the hire, but you’re as uniformed as the rest of us (presumably) as to the steps that got us there.

regardless of the timing, the most important thing is to get a coach and GM who are in it together. you can bet that randy will hire a GM who can work with Mangini toward a common goal with a shared vision. i see nothing irresponsible about that.

as well, what if he chooses a GM first, the GM hires the coach, and then that regime fails? Lerner fires everyone and we start all over. is that still absurd?

as i say, timing has nothing to do with it. getting the coach and GM on the same page is paramount, which he LEARNED from the romeo/savage fiasco.

If Lerner hires a GM to run the football operation, and then removes himself from the rest of the process, he truly allows football people to run the team. By making the hiring decision on behalf of the GM, he injects himself into the football decision making process. It is unfair for him to accurately evaluate the GM’s performance, as the head coach hiring was forced upon the GM. I want the coach to report to and depend upon the GM. This maintains an important and unquestionable pecking order and avoids any confusion about who has power.

i’m just not sure why a GM counts as a football person and a coach doesnt? you want the coach to report to the GM, that’s fine. i won’t argue that point, as i actually believe that to be the more desirable set up. however, i don’t think it’s an institutional indictment of lerner’s browns that he has hired the coach first, nor do i think it precludes a GM-as-boss set up.

to me, as long as it is well-documented that the GM and coach are to be held to the same account, the timing of the hires doesn’t matter. as long as the proper incentives are in place (job security), the timing shouldn’t matter. if the potential GM isn’t interested in being tied down with the coach, then he shouldn’t take the job.

…but i do think the rob ryan hire is outstanding, so i like the start that mangini’s getting off to.

I agree. If Lerner saw something in Mangini that made him think he’d be successful as a head coach, then I don’t see anything wrong with hiring him. I’m sure when he’s talked to GM candidates he’s mentioned names of possible coaches to see what they thought.

I think the big question is which position is more important to a football team, GM or head coach? Is it the guy who picks the players or the guy who chooses who the play and calls the plays? I don’t know the answer to that question; I’m sure people have different opinions. I think someone mentioned it elsewhere, but I remember reading that Lerner did a study and found out that the head coach was more important for success than a GM. (I have no idea how the study came to that conclusion.)

I also like the Rob Ryan hiring, so that is definately a good sign. For all their problems, Oakland has had a very good defense the past couple years.

Buckeye Brad - January 8, 2009 reply

Since Lerner is not a football man, the question is, is Lerner as qualified as a football GM to interview and hire the best available coach? I can’t believe you think the answer to that is a yes. And if Lerner isn’t the better qualified, he has injected himself into the football decision making process at a critical juncture.

elsandito - January 8, 2009 reply

In fact, you may currently be happy with Lerner’s choice, though that could change in time, but that’s beside the point. It’s a quetion of which business practice is best.

elsandito - January 8, 2009 reply

Well, I think Lerner has to hire somebody at some position to make the decisions. We can agree on that. And we agree that he is not a football man. So is he more qualified to hire a coach or a GM?

I think a GM is much harder to evaluate, because things like draft picks and trades are difficult to judge until years have passed, and in the context of everything that surrounded them. A coach, on the other hand, is easier to evaluate, because on-field decisions and performance manifest themselves in statistics. It’s still not easy, mind you, but easier. For instance, I still struggle to evaluate Phil Savage’s performance (other than his email responses), but I feel comfortable in saying that Romeo was awful.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that Lerner has to hire SOMEBODY, and he might just do a better job hiring a coach than hiring a GM. It’d be nice to have him do nothing at all, but that’s not possible.

Chemo - January 8, 2009 reply

You pose it as an either/or decision, but Lerner felt qualified to make both hiring decisions. It might be even easier to select a strength coach. How many football decisions do we want a nonfootball man to make? My unequivocal answer remains, just one.

elsandito - January 8, 2009 reply

There was some criticism for the hiring of Crennel (because it wasn’t Savage’s decision), but the fanbase got over it because we were happy to separate power between head coach and GM. I don’t really fault Lerner much for that, but over the last few years we’ve seen what can happen when a FO doesn’t get along well, or have the same idea of how they’d like to shape the team. Now, it seems like Lerner is ready to repeat the mistake of deciding on a head coach himself.

You’re right, I don’t like hiring a head coach before the GM. But can we please wait until he actually hires someone before criticizing the man? So far all we have to go by is speculation. I’m willing to wait until he actually makes a move to judge him.

OK, now I’m pissed off.

Who said Mangini is a bad coach? He had two winning seasons in three years with the Jets. I’m not saying he’s the guy I want, but to call him a “bad coach” is a bit extreme. He’s not Rod Marinelli.

Well, I’m calling him a bad coach in that I think he’s a bad candidate, relative to others. I threw some evidence out above.

My larger concern is the apparent lack of a plan that Lerner has demonstrated. First he wanted Cowher, then got rebuffed. He had a plan B in Pioli, but that seems to have failed. Now he’s enamored with hiring a head coach first? If that’s true, no es bueno. Es muy malo. It means he’s scrambling and we could get screwed.

Right now it’s largely speculation, so it’s not worth too much thought. If he hires Mangini and Kokinis, though, I’ll be pissed. And worried. If we win 12 games, I will have been wrong, but I was much happier a week ago when we were inches from turning over the keys to the Browns to Pioli.

I don’t know if this has been mentioned, sorry if it has, but I’m pretty sure i read that Lerner and his people’s “research” shows that hiring an effective coach is more important historically than hiring an effective FO man. How they researched this, I don’t know. But I think it has something to do with Lerner going down both paths at once.

kwoog - January 7, 2009 reply

What if he hands each candidate advanced copies of Madden 2010 and NCAAF 2010 and tells them to construct the roster?

Chris Pokorny - January 7, 2009 reply

I like this idea.

I could win that job.

What, the results of their fantasy season not good enough?

ouched - January 7, 2009 reply

The PD has an article about Kokinis’ background. Former Browns GM Ernie Acorsi, who brought Kokinis to Cleveland when he was with the Browns, has good things to say about him. He recommended him to Atlanta last year when they were looking for a GM. Here are some quotes:

Accorsi debunks the theory that a general manager is best qualified coming through the scouting ranks, since the draft is the lifeblood of the NFL.

“Number one, I think he did plenty of college scouting,” Accorsi said. "Number two, [former NFL executive and Hall of Famer] Jim Finks always told me that for the GM job, it’s more important to have a pro personnel background.

"His reasoning was you always have time to prepare for the draft. What’s more important is to know the league, not only the players but what it takes to play in the league. The NFL game changes, positions change. The coaches know the league and the pro personnel guys know the league. A lot of the college scouts, they don’t see the NFL games much.

“Listen, it’s the person that matters, but you’re better off being a pro guy because you’re going to know the league. You can always get ready for the draft. Finks would preach, ‘Look at pro tape, look at pro tape.’”

Another NFL team executive summed up Kokinis this way: “He’s a real good guy and works 24 hours a day. He’s one of those guys that sleeps in the office.”

Accorsi thinks Kokinis is ready to make the jump.

“The more research I did, the more I was convinced of it,” Accorsi said. “He works like hell. He’s a great guy. But you never know. These jobs can change people because the pressure and scrutiny is so great.”