Ever since the bye-week, when George Kokinis left the team and Randy Lerner promised changes, there has been countless rumors about dozens of possible leaders for the Browns' front office. But one name seems to have gone beyond rumor and speculation to a bonafide candidate and, now, the favorite to lead the franchise's future.
As reported by the Akron Beacon Journal and ESPN, Mike Holmgren is in the middle of a two-day visit/interview/sell-job with Randy Lerner and the Cleveland Browns. The position at issue is neither for coach nor GM. Instead, it is for be the head/president/czar of the football operations of the Cleveland Browns. Holmgren has met with Lerner and has also met with Mangini over the last 2 days.
In short, Holmgren would have the final say on the hiring of a new GM, on Mangini's future, and on Mangini's replacement or staff changes. Without doubt, he would have serious input in any future trades, drafts, and would dictate the personnel and football strategies and cultures of the team.
Mike Holmgren is a quarterback guru and offensive genius. From BYU in the 80s to the 49ers in the 90s to Green Bay and finally, Seattle, he has helped design explosive offenses and develop some of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game of football. He learned from a couple of the game's greatest innovators this side of Paul Brown and lead two different teams to Super Bowls, including a Super Bowl victory in Green Bay.
Tony Grossi is now reporting that Holmgren's agent, Bob LaMonte, is also in town and that is an almost sure sign that a deal is close:
That means the Browns likely are negotiating to wrap up a deal to make Holmgren the Browns' head of football operations.
LaMonte is known to get involved with his many coaching and executive clients only when a deal is near.
While this is still heavy on the speculation, this is more certainty than we have had with other rumors. Still, this could all be Holmgren using the Browns to get more money and interest in his services from another team, such as the Seahawks, who want him back as GM.
Homgren was reportedly the number 1 choice of Lerner, even going back to last year, but Holmgren wanted to take 2009 off. It is easy to see why:
The case for Mike Holmgren
The easiest way to argue for Mike Holmgren is to detail his resume. Holmgren was a QB at USC, but a career backup. After a few years at the High School level and a year at San Francisco State, he started his coaching career in earnest in 1981 at BYU:
1982-1985- Quarterbacks Coach, BYU. The team was coached by LaVell Edwards, who is credited for bringing a dynamic passing game to major college football in the 1980's, and is credited for changing the college game forever. In just four seasons at BYU, he helped develop the most explosive offense in the nation, developed two great college quarterbacks: Robbie Bosco and Steve Young, win the national championship in 1984, and mentored a young grad assistant starting his coaching career: Andy Reid. Wow.
1986-1991- Quarterbacks Coach and then Offensive Coordinator, San Francisco 49ers. During this time, the team was coached by Bill Walsh and George Seifert. Walsh is considered the developers of the West Coast Offense. Walsh has one of the most impressive coaching trees in the sport and is considered one of the greatest coaches ever. While in San Francisco, Holmgren was the position coach for Joe Montana, already established and Steve Young, revitalizing his career which became one of the most effective and efficient of all time. As offensive coordinator, Holmgren led one of the most effective offenses in league history. In 1989, the 49ers lead the league in every offensive category culminating in a historically dominating performance in Super Bowl XXIV, where the 49ers beat the Broncos 55-10.
1992-1998- Head Coach, Green Bay Packers. 75-37 in the regular season, 9-5 in the playoffs A great run by any measure. He had a winning record in each of 7 years in Green Bay, won a playoff game in 6 straight seasons, won the NFC Championship twice and the Super Bowl once. He mentored the most prolific and, in my mind, best, QB in NFL History: Brett Favre. He chose Favre over Ty Detmer, against popular opinion in 1992. What followed was a great run by both Favre and the Packers, including an absurd 3 MVP awards.
1999-2002- Head Coach and General Manager, Seattle Seahawks. Took Seattle to their first playoff berth in 11 years in 1999. But overall, he was ineffective with "full control". My opinion, it was a complete rebuild and he was focusing on personnel more than coaching. Something that we are seeing with Mangini currently. Overall 31-33 with just the one playoff appearance (a first round loss).
2003-2008- Head Coach, Seattle Seahawks. Focusing just on coaching, Holmgren dominated the NFC west, coming in second in 2003 and winning the division in 04, 05, 06, and 07. He was a solid 4-5 in the playoffs during this run, including a Conference title and corresponding Super Bowl XL appearance. He showed some versatility in his offensive system, as he coached another NFL MVP, but this time form the running back position: Shaun Alexander during his record breaking 2005 season. And he didn't forget how to develop QBs either. He brought former Favre backup, Matt Hasselbeck to Seattle in 2001. By 2003, Hasselbeck was a Pro Bowler and one of the most effective QBs in the league. He has now been to 3 Pro Bowls, holds just about every franchise passing record in Seahawk history, and even after awful an awful (injury filled) 2008 has completed 60% of his passes, has a rating over 84 for his career and about 60 more TDs than INTs in his career. 2008 saw a team ravaged by injuries and Holmgren was looking forward to taking a year off. Even with that terrible last year, he was 55-41 as "just" the Head Coach in Seattle.
I'll try another post looking at his moves as GM in Seattle. It was clear he had some huge successes though. For example see this story on our Seattle sister site just a couple weeks ago. http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/12/2/1183348/mike-holmgrens-greatest-managerial
0 recs | 481 comments
I am a fan of getting Holmgren, and I suspect most people would be on board with this. His success with QBs is fantastic, and if you are like me and think QBs are the difference between consistent winning and occassional winning, then it would be a tremendous hire.
Roger Dorn - December 15, 2009
As long as he doesn’t fire Mangini, I’m good.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Is this the common thought from Browns fans? I agree with you … after that Steelers win he deserves another shot next year. I was always on board with keeping him around just to see what happens, but I think he has done enough to warrant a stay of execution. If he has shown us anything, it’s that he can get the best out of people no matter where they are on the depth chart.
jsneides - December 15, 2009
Nope
Mangini needs to go. Blame the coordinators all you want, but Mangini is the one who hired them. Dabol is an absolutely terrible play caller and Ryan’s guys still can’t tackle worth a darn. With some decent coaching, this team could have probably four more wins this season.
Fanpuck33 - December 15, 2009
You are right, nobody tackled the steelers, and lord knows they should have done better because they are all seasoned veterans who have been starting for long periods of time.
rufio - December 15, 2009
You’re complaining about Rob Ryan? Really??
Buckeye Brad - December 15, 2009
have you watched any game this year? in particular the one against the steelers.
jsneides - December 15, 2009
I don’t agree with him, but beating the Stealers isn’t a big enough reason to keep someone
TheRealSlimShady - December 16, 2009
If Lerner’s decisions are based by the fans, it is. You’re from Kentuck, I can see why you wouldn’t understand.
SpecialBrownie - December 17, 2009
hey now, I resemble that remark
Villeslgr - December 17, 2009
I was arguing the fact that he didn’t live in state and didn’t understand the fan significance. Not the other way, about stereotypes and people from Kentucky…
You just insulted yourself my good man.
SpecialBrownie - December 17, 2009
we have to put it in college basketball terms.
jsneides - December 17, 2009
Why does beating a team that had lost to the Raiders and Chiefs the two weeks prior absolve one of the worst years in Browns history?
Don’t get me wrong, I loved beating the Steelers, but let’s not go crazy over a single win. In the two games we have won this season our offense has scored 1 TD.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
PIT’s losses to KC and OAK weren’t consecutive.
JulioBernazard - December 15, 2009
You’re right, my fault.
I should have said, why does beating a team that was on a four game skid, including two games against the Chiefs and Raiders, absolve one of the worst years in Browns history?
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
Because we are now looking strong and if we win out the season, We’ll be better than Romeo’s last year as coach. And how is this season worse than 99?
North Coast Flea - December 16, 2009
Looking strong?
Our offense is still ranked 32nd in the NFL. Defense is still ranked 31st.
We have looked better, but it is still way below strong.
Well let’s see. First of all in ‘99 we were an expansion team that was built on a few draft picks and other teams garbage. We weren’t expected to compete.
This season, some people thought that with better QB play, we would be a decent ball team. Aside from a few games, we have gotten the dog kicked out of us. Different expectations.
Also, look at the stats:
99’: Defense 377.9 YPG, Offense 235.1 YPG
09’: Defense 386.2 YPG, Offense 243.4 YPG
Yeah, this season blows.
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
…right, but don’t those rankings reflect the whole year and not our recent trend toward decent-ness? How are we over the past few weeks, particularly when looking at the most important stat (points)?
Not arguing that this season is particularly good, but we are looking better over the last few weeks, AND when comparing the worst season in (new) Browns’ history we have a TON of flat-out-awful seasons to choose from.
rufio - December 17, 2009
That is true, so I went back and looked. I think we can point to Detroit as the start of the “hot streak”’,
Detroit: Offense: Offense: 439 Yards (Best output of the season by far.) Defense: 473 Yards (By far Detroits best output of the season.)
Cincinnati: Offense: 169 Yards, Defense: 306 Yards Not too bad on defense.
San Diego: Offense: 372 Yards (looks good but we gained 160 yards in the 4th when they were up 20 points) Defense: 477 Yards (Chargers gained 400 yards in three quarters. Wow.)
Pittsburgh: Offense: 255 Yards (171 yards on the ground is sweet.) Defense: 216 Yards
Average it out it looks like 308 YPG for our offense and 368 YPG for our defense. That would be the 24th rated offense and the 27th rated defense. Until I looked, I thought the numbers would look better than this.
Just for pure entertainment value, if you take out the insane 4th quarter against San Diego, the Browns average 268 YPG which would be the 31st ranked offense.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
Entertainment value aside, you can’t take away one quarter just because we moved the ball exceptionally well or because we moved it exceptionally poorly.
If you look at the points, we’ve averaged 20 per game over that span, and allowed 22.5. That’s good for 20th and 22nd respectively over the course of the season, which means we jumped up about a third from our abysmal start to the year on offense.
And it wouldn’t be absurd to jump up another couple of notches in the coming weeks, as one field goal per game’s worth of improvement would move us up 7 spots on O or 9 on D. A similar boost in production for teams at the bottom or top of either of those columns would not produce such a such a jump in the standings—there is a lot of parity in the middle of the pack.
In the end, we are 2-11, which is awful. But we’ve seen improvement—legitimate improvement. And having the ability to finish the year looking like an average team would probably be better than 33% of the seasons we’ve had.
rufio - December 17, 2009
While you’re right that not everything is suddenly milk and honey, there’s been noticeable improvement in the past weeks, some of which you’ve cited yourself. Over the span since the Detroit game, for instance, according to your numbers, a jump from 32 to 24 would be a 25% improvement in the rankings offensively.
As far as the ‘insane’ fourth quarter against San Diego, point taken. But also keep in mind, for a more accurate analysis, you’d have to remove all the other ‘insane’ — outlier? — quarters that the other NFL teams produced in that time that pad their stats.
I think the jury is still out. We aren’t going to rebound statistically after being miserable for over half the season. However, Mangini and Co. still have three more games this season to show they can maintain this trend, a mark the team is making real progress, and make the case that they’ve got this thing headed in the right direction.
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
Yes, and no…but hiring Holmgren will, for me, restore faith in me (again, for me only, I suppose) that we have an owner who is, at LAST, showing he is dedicated to doing what it takes to get this ship finally…FINALLY…headed in the right direction.
johnnyphoenix - December 16, 2009
I think Randy has always been dedicated, he just hasn’t made good hires.
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
He’s been trying to do what it takes to right the ship, he just hasn’t succeeded.
rufio - December 17, 2009
Someone compared it to OSU/michigan, and I tend to agree with them.
Yes it has been an awful year, but I think beating pit was just a consequence of the improvement we’ve shown in the last few weeks.
rufio - December 15, 2009
Like rufio said, its the whole ohio state / michigan thing. You can do no wrong if you beat them. Obviously I want more, but beating the Steelers goes a long way with me. And I would assume this would go for the fan base as a whole. It’s sad but true. I am part of the herd.
jsneides - December 15, 2009
Oakland also beat Cincinnati who beat the Steelers twice. I didn’t watch the game but that says something about them I think. or not
jsneides - December 15, 2009
The Cincy game was a total gift by the Bengals.
But the Raiders did beat the hell outta the Iggles.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
Very true. I’m guessing those two wins may have more to do with the mindset of playing a horrible team than actual play by said horrible team.
jsneides - December 15, 2009
I don’t think it does in itself but it puts us in a good position to finish very close to where the team was expected to be as well as show some improvement from the mess we were at the beginning of the year.
Team finishes close to where predicted
Rebounds from a mess of a season to fight its way to a good finish
Team hasn’t quit on coach
Coach has been able to find some productive players
Real slippery slope to fire a coach after 1 season.
Villeslgr - December 15, 2009
If Holmgren comes, I can’t see how Mangini stays. Both guys have huge egos and I don’t see any reconciliation of that.
APV - December 15, 2009
yea its sad … i thought he was just about to hit his stride
jsneides - December 15, 2009
If this is true, then it’s bad news to have Mangini around regardless of Holmgren’s decision.
dgcambridge - December 15, 2009
Yep, on board.
dgcambridge - December 15, 2009
My head is going to explode with excitement. Do you guys think the Browns win over the Stellars has anything to do with this?
Brownsyup - December 15, 2009
Couldn’t hurt could it?
Andrew Tolliver - December 15, 2009
Why doesn’t Holmgren like Mangini?
The Brown Note - December 15, 2009
Who does?
scottsargent - December 15, 2009
Where does it say that he doesn’t like Mangini?
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Just seems like a lot of talk about Holmgren bringing in his own guy for the head coach. From that i was getting Holmgren doesn’t like Mangini, why else would he get rid of him? I’m with you golanbatrac I want Mangini to say. I would rather see Mangini stay, then to get Holmgren and lose Mangini. I think Mangini is in this for the long hall, he is young and will stay with the Browns for a long time. Holmgren is old, what hapends if he comes here gets rid of Mangini then after a year he wants to go back home to Seattle? Also Holmgren was a great coach but I’m not sure how good of a GM he was in Seattle, he did lose that job.
The Brown Note - December 15, 2009
Most GM’s would like to have their own guy as a HC.
Holmgren is from the Walsh tree and Mangini is from the Parcells tree. Holmgren is an offensive guy, Mangini is defensive.
If Holmgren gets the job, I would be shocked if Mangini kept his job. Holmgren will want to clean house in all likelyhood.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
While true, I could also see Lerner asking him to discuss options with Mangini, seeing if they could do a trial run for one year, and if things don’t improve by end of next year, Holmgren is free to choose another coach.
talonk - December 15, 2009
I think Holmgren will only take the job if he gets his way
TheRealSlimShady - December 16, 2009
Holmgren has talked to Mangini though. I wonder about what.
skipkirk - December 15, 2009
“Hey, I saw a Denny’s was hiring on my way over here.”
Adrock2099 - December 20, 2009
I don’t know about how well Holmgren would do in Cleveland (I’m sure he would be good as he has been good elsewhere), but I think that Cleveland has to be a very attractive place for him to consider. The weather is fantastic (jokes). But seriously, we have the absolute best fans in football, which has to be a plus. Given that fact, if he comes in and turns the Browns into a regular playoff contender, he will be THE MAN in Cleveland. But even more than that, he will be the man on the national front as well. Anyone who makes the Cleveland vs. Pittsburgh rivalry competitive again will be doing huge things for football. So I think there’s a potential for a huge reputation booster in Cleveland.
Aside from that, I think he’s gotta look at our team and like what he sees, especially the work that Mangini has done. The moves he made and the people he picked up through the draft/trades/waivers have been great moves. The fact that we have only what, two starters on defense? from last week that were in the same position they were at the start of the season should mean something. The fact that we shut down the Steelers’ running game and played competitively against the Chargers’ running game with those starters should mean even more.
I think Holmgren signs on and Mangini stays.
shep615 - December 15, 2009
Holmgren isn't the right man for the job
Let’s face it, Holmgren is no Bill Parsells and never will be. He had issues as a GM in Seattle and had to step down. He over paid for old washed up players and his draft skills are suspect at best. He, like many in this proffesion, is looking to get as much money out of the owner as he can, and if this footbal Czar thing is a new position requiring a big paycheck, then I’m sure he’s all for that. Holmgren is not the answer!!!
Dawgone - December 15, 2009
True, however I would assert this had something to do with him also being the head coach and the resultant overloading of responsibility. He is the best available for this particular position IMO, and you can’t fault the Browns for getting the best available. (I would love the former Titans GM too—but well, let’s just worry about Holmgren first).
I think if he does decide to come, Mangini will stay…especially since the GM position will remain open as yet. I think his main focus will be bringing in a GM he trusts and respects, and eventually that GM will be the major impetus for whether Mangini stays or goes…that decision most likely will take place next offseason at the earliest…depending, obviously, on performance.
Anyways, I’m thrilled to hear this is a possibility. I’m not getting my hopes up too much, but good news nonetheless.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
I agree, now can Lerner close the deal?
Red-Right-88 - December 15, 2009
This is how ESPN’s Adam Shefter is reporting it now.
Holmgren lives and is happy in Seattle. The Seahawks are interested in Holmgren as a GM.
It is up to Lerner to sell Cleveland and the Browns to Holmgren, otherwise, he’ll probably wait for a different job, likely closer to home.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
He wants to be back in pro football though, no? Unless he’s brought back into the Seattle Seahawks system, he’s going to have to move somewhere — unless ‘closer to home’ includes the entire West and West Coast. Convincing Lerner he has to ‘sell’ Cleveland might be a negotiating tactic. But I suppose that’s to be expected — he’s earned his stripes and he’ll demand his paycheck reflect that.
Western Reserve - December 15, 2009
We’ll see. As johnny says below, his problem was that he was both GM and coach for those few years in Seattle. Also, Seattle fans seem to credit the success they had from 2003-07 to Holmgren’s drafts and trades while GM. That’s how they got guys like Hutchinson, Hasselbeck, Engram, etc.
I hope to explore these drafts and moves more. But that will be a separate article.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
It looked like Holmgren built them, but Ruskell couldnt hold it together, I think it was Ruskell that overpaid for older players, see the other thread, someone did a nice job summarizing it.
Red-Right-88 - December 15, 2009
I disagree. Money is not an issue with Holmgren, he has bank. Holmgren wants another shot at the Bowl. If anything the money is secondary, he wants to put a stamp down and turn this poorly run franchise around.
This is about his face. His mark in the NFL.
Grockcubs - December 16, 2009
Maybe. But $10 million is a big deal. Even for Holmgren.
Ryan Kelsey - December 16, 2009
I completely agree with you on this. I don’t see how Holmgren is even remotely qualified for the job. The Browns have been a training ground in the past and it hasn’t worked out. Please Randy, quit grasping at straws, get someone who has been successful as a GM and then let them get to work.
cleveland.brown - December 16, 2009
So you disagree with the assertion that Holgren knows how to find a quality NFL QB?
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
Are we hiring Holmgren to be our QB coach? The guy is a great head coach, but we’re not hiring him to be a head coach. We need a GM and Holmgren has experience as a GM and it was a failure. Holmgren has no experience as a football executive either. Now some will write that Parcells didn’t have any experience as football executive either but Holmgren is no Parcells. If Lerner had the choice right now between Parcells and Holmgren, Holmgren wouldn’t even be an afterthought. My opinion is that the hiring of Holmgren would be a colossal waste of time and would only serve to make Holmgren millions of dollars richer.
cleveland.brown - December 17, 2009
I am saying that Holgrem has the ability to identify potentially great QBs as good as or better than almost anyone.
Roger Dorn - December 17, 2009
Okay. But is that the end all, be all?
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
is anything? anytime a coach is hired, it can be the same arguement. If they are on the market, who knows what they can do. Even if a Cower or a Dungy come out of retirement, they don’t have the same talent around them that they did when they were successful. it takes time to build a team. Mike Ditka is considered a great coach, but he couldn’t rebuild the Saints from 97-99. He didn’t have the front office or “his” players around him.
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
It’s up there in what you look for in a talent evaluator.
Roger Dorn - December 17, 2009
Fair enough, but I don’t think that’s the singular reason that makes the choice of Holmgren self evident. I believe there’s a lot of other things he has to do should he come to Cleveland.
Also, I think we have our QB in Quinn. If this remains the case, and I think it will, it doesn’t seem to me that the best argument for Holmgren is his ability to evaluate QBs.
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
It’s pretty close. If you can find a Peyton Manning, you can be my GM.
rufio - December 17, 2009
Well, naturally, I can’t argue against a Peyton type. Though, I’m not sure what there was to ‘find.’ He was a top rated college passer, and I don’t think his selection at #1 was especially surprising. He wasn’t a fifth round wunderkind a la Tom Brady or something. But I digress.
Sure, QB evaluation is important, but I don’t think Holmgren is a one-trick pony — and that’s very much a part of what I like about him. I suppose my line of thinking is a bit loaded on this though because I don’t feel we need to pursue a QB, in the draft or otherwise. That would leave the rest of the team’s needs for a seasoned professional who be staking his reputation on the success on the Cleveland Browns to go to work on.
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
Brady was taken in the sixth round.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
You’re right, thanks. Just adds a bit to his lore.
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
Right, I just meant a “multi-year pro bowl rock solid superstar QB”, not “Peyton Manning”. I am pretty convinced that right now this is the hardest guy to get who also is the most valuable guy in all of pro sports, maybe with the exception of a LeBron/Kobe level basketball guy.
I’m still not convinced Holmgren has been especially stellar in other areas of personnel evaluation. That isn’t to say he is a one-trick pony, just not as infallible as some are making him out to be.
rufio - December 17, 2009
didn’t he state he wanted to be coaching again?
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
What has Parcells done that Holmgren hasn’t? (Outside of a “Czar” position)
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
I don’t think there is any comparison between the two except a very favorable one for Parcells. Would you hire Holmgren over Parcells? Parcells has won more Superbowls (2 to 1) and turned around more teams (5 to 2). I’m also under the impression that Parcells did so while having more control over player personnel than Holmgren has ever had, except for a few years, and remember Holmgren was asked to vacate those responsibilites to Ruskell because he apparently wasn’t doing a good enough job.
cleveland.brown - December 17, 2009
Hell, he didn’t even turn around 2 teams. The Seahawks had one losing season (7-9) in the four seasons prior to Holmgrens arrival.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
Of course he turned around the Seahawks. They hadn’t been to the playoffs in 11 years, and in those 11 years they had exactly one winning season and 3 10+ loss seasons. That’s Bungel-esque.
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
If you want to say that the Parcells didn’t turn around the Cowboys or Jets.
And by your own admission, the Dolphins are just the Browns with two good RB’s. Is that a turn around?
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
I’m down on Holmgren, not necessarily up on Parcells. Parcells would be a better fit than Holmgren, but neither is necessary.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
If you don’t like Parcells or Holmgren, who the heck do you like? Do you really have that much faith in Mangini that you trust him over practially everyone else in the NFL?
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
That’s absurd. He went to 3 superbowls. He “only” turned around 2 teams because he enjoyed such lengthy success at each of those places. Parcells has bounced around a ton lately. In fact, I don’t think it is really fair to say he did much to turn around the Jets or Cowboys. Neither team did much while he was there, and neither team did much after he left.
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
No. But Parcells isn’t available.
Holmgren has coached two teams. He has taken two teams to the Super Bowl. Sounds like a great ratio. Just because Holmgren hasn’t been the tumbleweed Parcells has been isn’t a knock on Holmgren.
I was under this impression also, until I went back and looked. Parcells was a GM once, same as Holmgren. We all believe he is the one pulling the strings in Miami, but he has had the title of GM in one place, NYJets.
This is insane. Holmgren gave up the GM duties before the 2005 season. You really believe that Ruskell is solely responsible for the Seahawks Super Bowl team in the 05-06 season? I have looked at the rosters. Joe Jurevicious and Lofa Tatupu played a nice role, and they were brought in by Ruskell.
Other than that, the roster was made by Holmgren. To completely discount him is foolish.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
Holmgren would not be the GM, he would use his knowledge of the nfl to pick a good one.
who would you rather hire the football people, lerner or holmgren?
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
Neither. However, since I have to choose I’ll take Lerner because at lease he cares about the Browns unlike Holmgren who appears to only be interested in us enough to either get the one of the jobs that he really wants (San Francisco or Seattle) and/or to line his own pockets. Apparently the job was his for the taking last year but he wanted some time off. The job is again his for the taking and he’s still holding off. Lerner needs to wake up.
cleveland.brown - December 17, 2009
Do you have proof of any of this?
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
If you mean about Holmgren’s disposition towards the Browns, not anything other than what I’ve read on the Internet and and heard on the radio or ESPN.
cleveland.brown - December 17, 2009
You have done a terrible job reading the Internet and listening to ESPN
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
Not qualified? Wow, who is then for this job?
Grockcubs - December 16, 2009
mooncamping?
shep615 - December 16, 2009
Duty demands I rec that…
LondonBrown - December 17, 2009
This is baseless and absurd. There aren’t many people that have even tried to be in the position Holmgren is being considered for. Was Parcells qualified for the job before going to Maimi? If so, what is the difference between Parcells’ resume pre-Miami and Holmgren’s?? If you don’t think Parcells was qualified, then I guess it doesn’t matter if you are qualified or not, does it?
Also, I’m sorry to be that guy who quotes himself, but
This is NOT for the GM job. This is the job for the guy that hires the GM and the coach. The guy for this job must have a wide network and knowledge of football coaches and executives. He must understand football strategy, personnel, and the general operations of the NFL. Who has better qualifications than Mike Holmgren for this position?
Ryan Kelsey - December 16, 2009
+ 1 million Ryan
Grockcubs - December 16, 2009
I’m sure there are a number of people affiliated with the NFL in some way, past or present, who have qualifications that are superior to Holmgren’s as it pertains to being a football executive. I mentioned Bill Parcells in that previous post of mine as one who clearly stands head-and-shoulders above Holmgren in terms of reputation and prestige. However, I don’t think the answer to your question really matters because the Browns don’t need a “Football Czar.” Lerner needs to hire a GM with a good reputation and past record of success AS A GM, and then let them do their job.
cleveland.brown - December 17, 2009
But how many of those people are looking for a job. A number of people, such as Ernie Acorsi, said they want to stay retired and don’t want a full-time position. And Bill Parcells already has a job. So what are some names of more experienced men you would prefer over Holmgren?
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
I don’t know the answer to that question but Lerner and his staff should, or if they don’t know, they better be figuring it out. Other than Parcells, the only current or recent head coach that I would trust as a football operations executive is Bill Belichick and that’s mainly because I think that he has all ready been performing that function since he took over the Patriots and he is obviously successful at it. That means for me no Holmgren, Schottenheimer, Cowher, Shanahan, or anyone else being handed the keys to franchise who doesn’t have requisite success and experience . If they want to be our head coach, great! If they want to sit and learn as an assistant GM, possibly. Once again, Lerner should hire a experienced and previously successful GM and let them get to work.
cleveland.brown - December 17, 2009
But once again, Belichick isn’t available.
You still haven’t answered Brad’s question. Who are the names of experienced men you would prefer over Holmgren?
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
I agree. If we’re going to take the chance that we blow it all up again, we should at least get an already successful GM. This Czar business is for the birds.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
Blow up what? Mangini already blew everything up, so what else is there to do? There aren’t many more parts here to get rid of.
We don’t have a GM now, so it’s not like we’re getting rid of one to bring in Holmgren. I don’t see what the problem would be with bringing him in to build our new team. He’s certainly had more experience and been more successful than Mangini.
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
Well, obviously, there’s still plenty to do. We could switch to the 4-3 and dump half of the good players we have and most of the positional depth we have. We could switch to the West Coast and put Quinn’s future up in the air yet again, while simultaneously negating the strength of Alex Mack’s game (in-line blocking). We do have one lineman, Steinbach, who’s suited to the West Coast. We can build around him and hope that Holmgren does well with those 11 picks (not that he’s ever done particularly well in the draft — but who knows, he is a big name).
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
Thomas, Mack, and Steinbach could probably play in any scheme. If we get two athletic right side guys, we could be pretty effective at the inside zone and stretch plays, IMO.
rufio - December 17, 2009
I agree that Mack could adapt, but in that scheme he’s not really worth the first we dropped on him.
Maybe I’m being short sighted, but I really want to see the power run game in Cleveland.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
So did the 49ers.
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
That is the thing around here.
Don’t matter that he had the GM part of his job out in Seattle taken away because he did a bad job of it.From some around here it is Holmgren he is great.
For what it is worth my boss is a Seahawks fan and he said as long as Holmgren don’t have a hand in the draft he will be good at his job.
Brownsfan4ever - December 17, 2009
rufio - December 17, 2009
Who?!?
Parcells and Holmgren’s resume’s are virtually identical. You point to one more Super Bowl victory, though Holmgren has the same number of appearances. Holmgren has a higher winning percentage, more wins, taken tougher jobs, more playoff appearances, more playoff wins, more stability and consistency and is much less of an ass.
Who is this GM? And if you can identify that person, congrats. But I don’t trust Lerner to identify that person. He has had a tough time doing so in the past, and I’d rather it be someone with a football background making that identification and hire.
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
I’ll take the guy who called the shots in our last draft. That’s who I want.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
He was fired.
At least that is what his contract said.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
He was fired because he wasn’t necessary. Mangini did fine on his own.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
So, you want Mangini to have total control?
I am a defender of Mangini’s drafts and personnel moves. In fact, I think that is his strength. I just don’t really like his offensive hires, his game management, his PR, his team management, and his lack of innovation.
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
I’d rather Mangini have total control than to blow it up again. The ideal situation would be to find a GM who can work with/for Mangini, but short of that, I say leave well enough alone.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
Even the best football coaches usually struggle with full control yet you want to give it to Mangini, a guy who hasn’t even proven that he’s a good coach yet? Wow.
Once again I’ll ask — what is the next guy (if there is a next guy) going to blow up? That’s already been taken care of. I don’t see how we can take any more steps backwards by bringing in someone new because we’re already at the bottom of the NFL. This team isn’t going to get “blown up” again if Holmgren or someone else comes here, it’s going to get built with the few pieces we currently have. I really don’t know what you’re so worried about.
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
You’re absolutely right Shep, Manginis doing the hard work of sweeping house of the talkers, leaving the doers, whether they’re stars or not, and showing results. I don’t care if Holmgren comes here or not, I hope he does for his offensive credentials,the Browns GM job got a lot more attractive since the end of last year. A strong personality above Mangini would make me really look forward to next year.
JDawg62 - December 15, 2009
Agree. I think Mangini’s strengths can be maximized and his weaknesses minimized with a supportive, yet firm, front office.
I still think Daboll needs to go though, regardless.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
MOST important, we need these guys in place for the DRAFT.
Crucial.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
I’ve added some resume info on Holmgren to the story above.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
SpecialBrownie - December 15, 2009
Sorry bout that, I got rolling.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Good stuff. It’d be hard to look at the resume and not be excited. The man certainly knows QBs. Hasselbeck was a no one that he plucked away from Green Bay and turned into a Super Bowl/Pro Bowl QB.
Roger Dorn - December 15, 2009
No kidding. I mean, any resume that includes these names is ridiculous:
- LaVell Edwards
- Robbie Brosco
- Steve Young @ BYU
- Bill Walsh
- George Seifert
- Joe Montana
- Steve Young @ San Francisco
- Brett Favre
I mean, common. We aren’t talking about great players and coaches. We are talking about all-time best.
Then you think about the other coaches and people that he has worked with and you have a network that covers about half the NFL. It is literally, under the definition of coaching tree on wikipedia.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Same with favre. A nobody that he plucked from Atlanta.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Correction Ron Wolf plucked from ATL.
Red-Right-88 - December 15, 2009
Holmgren was involved in the decision.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Read the “Packer Way” by Ron Wolf, sitting on my desk, an excellent management book. It was all Wolf, he brought them both in early 1992.
it was however Holmgren’s decision to play Favre.
Too bad Wolf is too old, we wasted his expertise a few years back. :(
Red-Right-88 - December 15, 2009
But Holmgren was involved in the decision (to the point of nixing a potential trade for Steve Young).
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
read the book LOL Holmgren did a great job of develping him but it was Wolf’s call the whole way.
Red-Right-88 - December 16, 2009
the book is also by ron wolf, so of course he’ll want to take full credit. i’ll bet you if holmgren ever writes a book about it he will make it sound like it was all his idea.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
There’s a book called LOL? Really?
Buckeye Brad - December 16, 2009
http://www.amazon.com/LOL-Humor-Internet-Steve-Marshall/dp/0967308704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260981443&sr=1-1
You asked…
Brownsyup - December 16, 2009
I understand the NFL is a QB driven league, but how does his knowing QBs necessarily help us in our current situation if he’s looking at a job as football czar and won’t be on the sidelines nurturing and developing our QB?
I’m all for Holmgren, by the way, I’m just wondering where this reasoning is headed.
Western Reserve - December 15, 2009
Evaluating QBs hasn’t been our strong suit since expansion. I’d expect him to be able to do better.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
I would trust nobody else, maybe on this planet, to objectively evaluate Brady Quinn and to surround him with the players and coaches to be successful (or if he isn’t an NFL caliber starter, to find someone that is).
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Okay, good points. I especially like the argument that he would be able to grasp surrounding the QB with players and coaches to help him prosper. That also makes it sound a lot less one dimensional.
Western Reserve - December 15, 2009
While he is a QB coach first, he also has success with other aspects of evaluating, drafting, and developing all parts of the offense. Think of some of the WRs Favre had to work with in the mid 90’s. Think of the running game lead by Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, and Shaun Alexander. (Hutchinson and Alexander were drafted by Holmgren). Think of the coaches he was a mentor and example for (Andy Reid, Mike Sherman, Steve Mariucci, Marty Mornhinweg, Jon Gruden).
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Also Dick Juron and Ray Rhodes.
The 92 Green Bay coaching staff had 5 future HC’s on staff:
Gruden, Juron, Rhodes, Reid, Mooch. That is insane.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
Nicely done.
Do you have any more information on the Favre/Detmer choice?
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Not really. It came from wikipedia, which got it from this article: http://www.lasalle.edu/collegian/sports/articles/06/oct11/brett_favre.html.
No doubt that Detmer was the more decorated and well-known player at that time though. So I found it credible.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Thanks.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Here’s my take on Mangini’s future:
It’s up to Holmgren first, then it’s up to Mangini. Holmgren has to decide whether he is comfortable with Mangini. They come from very different football philosophies, and if nothing else Holmgren is going to want a different offensive scheme. That means no Daboll, and it means someone from the Holmgren/Bill Walsh tree on the offensive side. And the corresponding personnel to fit this system. I’d love if Holmgren kept Ryan, but he probably has his own views on defensive scheme too (though not as strong as his offensive ideals).
Then, can Mangini handle not being in total control? This isn’t clear. Reports are that he is tough to work for on the front office side of things. This explains at least part of the Kokinis situation. Will he accept being forced to change his offensive coordinator? What about the draft?
I just don’t see how they can work together. And the bottom line is I don’t care. I want Holmgren making that decision, not Lerner, not the fans. That’s the point of this whole thing, right?
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
He better get used to it pretty damn quick.
He doesn’t exactly have a whole lot of leverage
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
Right. I imagine if Holmgren or whoever considers keeping him at all, they just say,
“Look, you were 3-13. Your offense was terrible. I have 10 guys that I really like that would make good coaches and come here in a heartbeat. You want to stay? I’d like your input on the draft, but you will like who I give you. You will coach the hell out of them. And you will say all the right things. Don’t like this arrangement? There’s the door.”
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Amen.
…and it’s not like Mangini is going to have any HC jobs in the NFL waiting for him AT ALL if he leaves or is booted. I’m sure he is WELL aware of this.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
That and Mangini would probably never be hired to become a head coach again if he were to lose this job. I would say he will jump at whatever Holmgren allows.
Roger Dorn - December 15, 2009
“Eric! Eriiiiic!…Ah Eric, there you are my lad…be a good chap and fetch my slippers would you? They’re under the Divaaaaaan….Thaaaaank you.”
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
hahaha
emily522 - December 16, 2009
I think the Browns can beat KC and OAK.
JulioBernazard - December 15, 2009
I thought Pittsburgh would beat KC and Oakland as well. Seriously. As great as last week was, I still have my optimism dial cranked way down.
woodsmeister - December 16, 2009
I still think there is a slight possibility that we could win out the season as I stated above.
North Coast Flea - December 16, 2009
I agree the Czar needs to have final say on all football related decisions.
Roger Dorn - December 15, 2009
Right. Otherwise what would really be the point in hiring the guy? No use in paying someone what will likely be big money to take over a newly conceived position to immediately make him impotent.
Western Reserve - December 15, 2009
This is an interesting thing from the “coaching tree” side of things. It is a grafting of a Belichick branch (which is of Parcells origin) into the Holmgren tree. What kind of fruit will we get? A prickly apple? A strangely colored olive that tastes like an avacado?
I think Ryan makes the key point… it doesn’t really matter if they can work together IF one supports the idea of having a football czar in the first place. Either they will work together (with or without a GM) or they won’t. If they don’t, Mangini is gone and that is how it should be with a czar. And as far as czars go, I’d have a hard time coming up with someone with as good of credentials or evident football expertise as Holmgren.
Brownsyup - December 15, 2009
Whatever it is, I’d be surprised if it weren’t pear shaped.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
ba-dum-pum!
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
That was good.
Brownsyup - December 15, 2009
lol
emily522 - December 16, 2009
I thought the “czar” was to hire coaches and GMs and give input on the draft and player acquisition/contracts, not to have a direct impact on the product on the field?
In any event, Mangini is a defensive guy. I don’t see him having a problem working with a WCO coordinator per se. I think Mangini wants to be able to be flexible on offense, and any coordinator will need to have some ancillaries in the NFL today.
Similarly, I don’t see Holmgren having a problem with running the 3-4 per se, as long as he can find guys that will fit that system and work with the coaches to know what they want. Mangini and Ryan want to be “multiple” anyway, getting versatile guys who can line up with their hand on the ground, drop into coverage, or play alongside 4 other LBs and 6 DBs.
I think the real point where Mangini and Holmgren would have to mesh would be in terms of their core principles. Like on Thursday when Millen was talking about how our current coaches want guys with good SAT scores (Smart, Athletic, Tough). Mangini has talked about wanting guys to whom the game of football is important, etc. That I think is really what will be the key to any sort of coexistence, and the football stuff can flow out of that.
rufio - December 15, 2009
exactly, i think both men are smart enough to know there are advantages and disadvantages to every system, and one system isn’t necessarily superior to another. i don’t think they’ll have an issue as far as X’s and O’s, but there’s room for clashing on overall philosophy. that said, i don’t think it would be too big of an issue. I also think its possible holmgren would get rid of mangini to avoid there being any possible chance of disagreement, whether he thinks its likely or not.
notthatnoise - December 15, 2009
If it worked, the combination of Holmgren/Mangini-Ryan could be a winner. Does it matter whether he calls himself President or Czar or whatever. These are just titles. As long as they compliment each others abilities, the combo could be great.
JDawg62 - December 15, 2009
I think the losing and the criticisms have probably made Mangini a little more flexible with what he’ll accept, if you believe what he’s saying to the news about “whatever will help.” He’d be a lot less likely to get another head coaching position if he balked at suggested changes by Holmgren.
JDawg62 - December 15, 2009
Yep.
I think the real turning point was when Kokinis left. I think Mangini really thought he had Lerner in his back pocket enough to possibly take over GM himself. Essentially, in a subtle way, Lerner made it clear to the media that this was not going to happen, and that really Mangini was to have little if any input in the decision making process. Ever since then I’ve noticed Manginis reigned in the ‘dictator’ act a bit.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
Try the reply button.
I hope Mangini would realize his (lack of) credibility. But don’t underestimate a guy like Mangini’s (or Holmgren’s for that matter) ego.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
I don’t really see why people think Mangini has a huge ego… He seems pretty humble in his press conferences. Other than that we have news reports that I think are probably over-exaggerated or that don’t tell the whole/true story. What are you guys seeing?
shep615 - December 15, 2009
I think all coaches have huge egos, but don’t see where Mangini’s ego is out of control. He seems like a genuinely decent guy.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Bernie was right when he said something about winning changing peoples perspective of Mangini.
JDawg62 - December 15, 2009
True… Lots of people have changed their perspective. I’ve been supporting Mangini from the beginning though… I even sent fan mail to whoever gets it for the Browns around week 5 saying so :-p
shep615 - December 15, 2009
I’ve been on the Mangini bandwagon since draft day.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
I’m seeing the bus trip situation, which admitted by Mangini to be a little over the top and centered on his ego.
I’m seeing, as mentioned above, the Kokinis situation, which had, at least a little, to do with Mangini’s desire to have more control than a normal coach.
I’m seeing (or rather hearing) a report from Chris Spielman on Columbus 97.1 that Mangini was absolutely impossible to work with in New York and the entire front office was relieved, more than anything, when he was fired.
I’m seeing a head coach, often abrasive to the media, fans, players, coaches, and staffs in the Bill Belichick model.
I’m seeing an NFL head coach. A profession that invites and almost requires a large ego.
At end, I don’t think its necessarily a bad thing. Most coaches have large egos. It is the fact that Holmgren and Mangnini have both been NFL head coaches and have had (varying degrees- by a huge amount) of success. I think anyone in the league or to most fans would be shocked if these guys, with no history together, would be happy working together.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Well if Mangina and Holmgrits can’t work together, then who will Holmgrunt bring in? Is it really time for Chucky ball around here?
Dawgone - December 15, 2009
I stopped reading at ‘Mangina’.
Grow up.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Than quit reading all this
-- anyway!!!!Dawgone - December 15, 2009
Yeah. It’s MANgustus Gloop, anyways.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
haha.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Let’s not count our Holmgrens before they’re hatched just yet.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
I’ve been on the Mangini bandwagon since draft day.
He is a pathetic ecuse of a coach and he has been called Mangina since day one. Just get real and realize he is not the answer, he is one of the many problems.
Dawgone - December 15, 2009
You seem new here. I’m fairly new myself, but this is something you learn real quick:
No one really listens to you or gives you an ounce of credibility when you refer to Mangini as “Mangina”. 1.) We’ve all heard it a thousand times before. It got old REAL fast. 2.) It quite frankly makes you look dumb and makes your posts sound dumb, and we try to encourage intelligent conversation here.
So just a tip… If you want people to listen to you, don’t use the term “Mangina”
shep615 - December 15, 2009
So you think “intelligent” conversation is more like
“True… Lots of people have changed their perspective. I’ve been supporting Mangini from the beginning though… I even sent fan mail to whoever gets it for the Browns around week 5 saying so :-p”
Sounds like you are a Mangini supporter as most seem here, but thanks for the lesson on what this group of Mangini supporters will accept and what they won’t.
Dawgone - December 15, 2009
We prefer to be called apologists.
Roger Dorn - December 15, 2009
That makes more sense Mr. Dorn
Dawgone - December 15, 2009
green
notthatnoise - December 15, 2009
for agreeing with you, i apologize.
Dawg Nuts - December 16, 2009
A lot of people here can’t stand Mangini. It isn’t your position that is turning people off, its the fact that you are acting like a confrontational aggro jackass.
Follow the community guidelines and try to add something to the discussion. If you think Mangini isn’t the answer, you can start by providing examples as to why, instead of expecting all of us to take your word as though you were the final authority on football matters. Maybe something besides how his name sounds like “mangina”.
rufio - December 15, 2009
confrontational aggro jackass.
Wow,
Name calling, you guys really are of the upper echelon!
Dawgone - December 15, 2009
aggro
jackass.
Someone was being polite and trying to help you out, and you got in their face. Maybe it wasn’t my best option as far as wording, but that kind of stuff isn’t welcome. I can think of many worse names I could have used.
rufio - December 15, 2009
Grammatically poor.
JulioBernazard - December 15, 2009
also true
notthatnoise - December 15, 2009
Although interesting. I’m having trouble imagining how someone would say that out loud.
gahnki - December 15, 2009
Than quit reading all this (walks down the corrider and turns a corner… pops head back out from corner) anyway!!!!
SpecialBrownie - December 15, 2009
Corridor. :)
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
I thought it was a nice touch.
SpecialBrownie - December 15, 2009
I think it’s the extra exclamation points that make it special. Like a tween girl discussing how dreamy “High School Musical” is.
woodsmeister - December 16, 2009
He wasn’t calling you names. He said you were acting like a confrotational jackass, which you were.
Buckeye Brad - December 15, 2009
Also true.
rufio - December 15, 2009
I believe this is the site you were looking for:
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/
notthatnoise - December 15, 2009
Welcome Dawgone. Listen a little more and talk a little less at first and you’ll find this an accommodating place that is open to all discussion. There is a lot to appreciate here at DBN and you will be a welcome addition if you step back a bit and support your arguments with facts and reasonable opinion. We try to cultivate a little respect here even for folks with whom we disagree.
Brownsyup - December 15, 2009
fixed
Chief WaDrew - December 16, 2009
Good point. We don’t want any Twilight threads.
Brownsyup - December 16, 2009
Plenty of people here aren’t Mangini supporters, but we prefer intelligent football discussion, not immature name-calling. Take that somewhere else please. If you’re going to post here than we expect you to provide thoughtful discussion based on facts. We will listen to any opinion you provide that way.
Buckeye Brad - December 15, 2009
just ask mooncamping
Chief WaDrew - December 16, 2009
Most people here, I would guess…aren’t Mangini supporters per se. Hell I’m not. However, he is most likely not going anywhere for a bit so we’re trying to hash out and discuss just how the Browns can maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. Main thing is…jury’s out. If he goes after this season I’m not going to miss him… but if he stays and the right front office is in place, and there are some assistant coaching changes (re: Daboll leaving), I’ll be willing to give him another year to show improvement.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
Besides, I was all for Mangini being fired after this season…things seemed to be in a tailspin. However, while games like the lions and Chargers did show improvement to some, I was still unconvinced. I mean, the Lions, c’mon. AND they lost. Plus, I’m not crazy about ‘moral’ victories.
But then, after the Steelers WIN….well, now we have a progression here in the right direction that’s impossible to deny.
Now I’m thinking….‘wait a minute here, let’s see how this thing plays out a bit….and see what kind of front office support he gets.’
Let’s assume we get Holmgren…and the team plays well for the remainder of the season, maybe winning one or two more…now I’m intrigued, and want to see more…etc. etc.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
Maybe a guy like Holmgren would be willing to give it a shot.
Why not, we have had nothing like consistency or stability, which are desirable, and we could clean house again next year, or we could wait a year and then possibly have to clean house the following year.
Why do it now if we aren’t sure?
I trust Holmgren to make this decision over the fans, btw.
rufio - December 15, 2009
Easy rec.
JulioBernazard - December 15, 2009
So that what put you not on the bandwagon?
Villeslgr - December 15, 2009
so that would put you not on the bandwagon, even
Villeslgr - December 15, 2009
Ryan,
A few editing notes:
1. QB at BYU was Robbie Bosco, not Brosco
2. While Holmgren did coach Steve Young at SF, Young did not become the starter until 1991. He was the backup and may have been revitilized by Holmgren’s coaching yes, but Young’s leadership as a starter was mostly after Holmgren left.
3.
Seifert if I recall correctly, was always a defensive coordinator, and therefore never had much input on the West Coast offense.
talonk - December 15, 2009
Thanks! I was trying to get this out soon, and didn’t have a chance to edit much of it.
1. Don’t know why I had it as Brosco in my head.
2. He did coach Young though. At an extreme low point in Young’s career. It is almost certain that Young became a better quarterback in those seasons, as a backup. Holmgren was also the offensive coordinator for Young’s first season.
3. You are correct, Seifert was a defensive guy. I just read that it was when Walsh left that Holmgren was promoted by Seifert to OC. I assumed it was to replace himself. Does anyone know who Walsh’s offensive coordinator was? Did he just do it himself?
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
am pretty sure Walsh was his own OC until he retired.
talonk - December 15, 2009
Holmgren was QB coach under Walsh and took over OC for Seifert when Walsh retired.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
Odd wording, but that was my understanding. And it makes it seem like Seifert was the OC before Holmgren.
This was not the case.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Yeah sorry I meant Holmgren was the QB coach under Walsh, who was the OC. Then, when Walsh retired and Seifert took over as HC…Holmgren assumed OC duties. lol
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
Here is Holmgren’s draft record during his time as both GM and Coach. Some impressive. Some bad. I’ll try to break it down later.
He get’s 100% blame and credit for these choices. Before anyone goes too crazy with this information though, also try to consider this doesn’t include the trades and FA pickups he made, some which look very good.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Also, he probably deserves some credit/blame for the drafts in Green Bay and the years after he was stripped of the GM title in Seattle.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
So how is “czar” different from GM?
joeee - December 15, 2009
I think they are pretty much the same with the “czar” being the face of the franchise, like Parcells in Miami.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
the “czar” has more power. He can hire and fire the gm as well as the coach. most gm’s can’t fire a coach. the czar also gets input on a wide variety of things including things such as scheming, drafts, assistant coaches, etc.
most gm’s have little to no control over their coach after he’s hired. the czar does, at least thats my understanding of it.
notthatnoise - December 15, 2009
Holmgren escorted from the Browns facility by Security:
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2009/12/cleveland_browns_and_mike_holm.html
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
LOL I love the Cleveland Media,
’UPDATE: Mike Holmgren leaves facility.
UPDATE: Mike Holmgren returns to Cleveland hotel after interviewing for Browns front office position.
UPDATE: Possible Browns Czar Mike Holmgren has a pork chop sandwich, Ju Ju curly fries, and a diet Sprite at Shenanigan’s Restaurant in a local Cleveland Hotel.
UPDATE: Reputed new Browns Head of Football Operations Mike Holmgren reportedly takes a shower, rumored to be using Axe sea salt and menthol body wash.
UPDATE: Possible new Browns hire Mike Holmgren reputably snaps into 2 Slim Jim’s, watches Sanford & Son before bed.
News at 11.
johnnyphoenix - December 15, 2009
ooo TWO slim jims!
that menthol body wash is awesome. makes the skin tingle.
BringBackKosar - December 15, 2009
I feel kind of bad for Grossi.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
Funny, they have updated this story a few times and now the line about a Browns security person being the one that drove them off the Browns campus doesn’t even appear in the article.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
What worries me is that we may be blowing everything up again if we hire Holmgren. He apparently has no connection to Mangini and his preferred style of football is much different. I’m not sure how I feel about this.
Anything that leads to Mangini being jettisoned is questionable in my opinion.
gahnki - December 15, 2009
Agree.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
I’m not sure I understand why you feel Mangini is so indispensable. On the one hand, I agree coaches deserve more than one year to prove themselves or their system. On the other hand, this season has been one of the worst ever in Browns history. If we hire someone like Holmgren, it might mean we have to start over again next year, but I trust Holmgren’s long term plan over Mangini’s one thousand fold. If Holmgren wants to include Mangini, fine. If not, fine too.
bbstirrd - December 15, 2009
Eventually, the Browns must stop changing directions every few years and just let someone build something. I was all for the firing of Savage/Crennel because there didn’t appear to be a long-term plan, but Mangini at least seems to be building towards something.
If we bring in someone else with another style then what are we really doing? Condemning the organization to another four years of confusion?
gahnki - December 15, 2009
Yeah I get that, and we both ultimately want the same thing. I guess I just trust someone like Holmgren – who has a proven track record – to achieve long term stability and success more than I do Mangini. This doesn’t mean Mangini necessarily has to go or stay. Let the ‘czar’ make the call.
bbstirrd - December 15, 2009
I understand that view point, but what are we tearing down?
Didn’t Mangini already clean house?
I guess it comes down to a simple question, who are you more comfortable rebuilding a franchise, Mangini or Holmgren? I can’t think of a single reason why anyone would rather have Mangini over Holmgren.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
I feel we’re tossing around the ‘worst ever’ title too easily. There have been worse. Heck, I still remember the last year Romeo had.
skipkirk - December 15, 2009
I agree, this season’s not even over yet, we could very easily win more games than last year, i think people are assuming its over and we’re a two-win team, which isn’t true at this point.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
I guess it just depends on what you mean by this season not being over yet. In terms of developing players and building momentum toward next season, than yeah these last few games do mean something. But that is geared more toward building something for next year. This year, the season was over – in terms of trying to make the playoffs – almost as quickly as it began. That is what I meant when I said this has been one of the worst seasons in Browns’ history.
bbstirrd - December 16, 2009
That pretty much describes every season since expansion (’07 and the playoff year being notable exceptions). The difference being that for once we seem to be finishing the season on a positive note rather than phoning it in.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
Not all of those seasons were that bad. Some were. But even still, this is the latest in the season (week 13) that it has taken the Browns to get to 2(!) wins. I’m with you that beating the Steelers adds a positive twist to this year. I hope it continues.
bbstirrd - December 16, 2009
then you can say this has been the worst 13 weeks, but there are 17 in a season.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
Well if we want to play the semantics game, what I originally said was “this has been one of the worst seasons.” This implies everything that has occurred up until this point, i.e. the first 13 weeks. Why are we arguing again?
bbstirrd - December 16, 2009
because i think its way too early to call this one of the worst seasons in browns history. yes, i realize you said so far, but your implication was that it would remain that way. if the browns lose the final three games, yes, it was one of the worst ever. if they win out, it was a bad season, but about what we expected.
my main issue with that statement was that you used something that is clearly still up in the air as a reason to get rid of mangini.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
Wait a minute now. I never said the Browns should fire Mangini. I said the new ‘czar’ should have the power to make that decision one way or another. If he keeps him, fine. If not, fine too.
My main point is that I trust someone like Holmgren’s long term strategy over Mangini’s. Even if the Browns win all of the remaining games, they still had a bad year. One of the worst ever? Maybe not, but bad nonetheless. I get your point that this season is not over. But I don’t get why you put Mangini over Holmgren.
bbstirrd - December 16, 2009
i never did, i agree with that part of your post. all i was arguing is that its a big knee-jerk reaction to call this season one of the worst ever without the season being over.
I agree it should be holmgren’s decision. I think mangini should be back for another year, but if he isn’t i won’t lose any sleep over it.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
Mangini being jettisoned in one season is questionable. But that question is answered with a credible, knowledgeable and strong football mind in total control of the organization.
If Lerner fires Mangini- and replaces him with another coach- I have a problem.
If Lerner hires Holmgren, who decides to fire Mangini- I have no problem at all.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
I agree with this completely. The other option is that Lerner brings in another GM we’ve never heard of with no reputation and he fires Mangini which would also be a bad thing IMHO.
Brownsyup - December 15, 2009
I can’t say I would have a problem, per se, but I would be disappointed. I pretty much agree with gahnki that stability and direction would be nice for once, and it seems that we finally have the groundwork laid.
rufio - December 16, 2009
And I’m not sure how the “Czar” is supposed to be the “Czar” if he doesn’t get to pick his own coach/GM. I’m afraid this will just be a repeat of the Kokinis situation.
gahnki - December 15, 2009
He would get to pick his own coach and GM. That is the whole point.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Well, we don’t really know that. All we know is that he’s rumored to be able to do that.
gahnki - December 15, 2009
I strongly believe that nobody would take the job, especially one as respected and secure as Holmgren without that power. Also, I strongly believe Lerner would not make that mistake.
But you are right, I don’t really know this.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
I agree.
Really?
gahnki - December 15, 2009
Alternate titles for Holmgren
Football Sultan
Supreme Chancellor of Football Ops
Football Pasha
High Potentate of Player Personnel
Bellator Rex
BringBackKosar - December 15, 2009
His Goo Goo G’Joobness.
golanbatrac - December 15, 2009
See how they fly like dawgs in the sky….
SpecialBrownie - December 15, 2009
we could call him the eggman and mangini the walrus
North Coast Flea - December 16, 2009
in fairness to holmgren’s mustache i think it has to be the other way around
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
I like Grand Poobah of Footballocity and he has to wear this hat:
Brownsyup - December 15, 2009
I can get on board with that!
Seriously. Think about what that press conference would look like… “Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce to you for the first time the Grand Poobah starts laughing… Sorry guys… The Grand Poobah of Footballocity, Mike Holmgren!”
shep615 - December 15, 2009
I like Moustache of Managment.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
johnnyphoenix - December 16, 2009
Lord high mucky-muck
Chemo - December 16, 2009
at first glance, I thought that said “Hank Poteat of Player Personnel”
Uriah33 - December 16, 2009
I could get on board with this if a Holmgren/Gruden partnership is in line, though. That would be quite interesting.
gahnki - December 15, 2009
Gruden just signed a long term deal with ESPN. He isn’t going anywhere.
Also, he needs to get an adult haircut. Dennis the Menace just doesn’t do it.
SpecialBrownie - December 15, 2009
ESPN deal means nothing. It’s peanuts compared to NFL money.
gahnki - December 15, 2009
I would be shocked if Grudens ESPN deal didn’t have an escape clause for a coaching gig.
You can hear it in his voice on MNF. He gets so pissed when a team commits a stupid penalty. He is a coach.
I would kill for a Moustache Managment (that’s right, I’m using it!) – Gruden partnership in Cleveland.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
Agreed. Gruden is the most attractive and probably most available of the coaches with direct ties to Holmgren.
That ESPN deal only makes him a touch more expensive. Nothing to worry about with Lerner writing the checks.
Ryan Kelsey - December 15, 2009
Maybe we could get another former Holmgren/current TV guy to come coach?
Steve Marriucci anyone? Just putting it out there.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
while i wouldn’t necessarily be disappointed, i don’t see that as an upgrade over mangini. but if holmgren wants his guy, and thats his guy, i’d be ok with that i guess.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
I do not care who they hire as long as Mangini is out!! This team will go now where with that idiot running the team. He is a looser, and always be a looser, because of his personality.
lifeatford - December 15, 2009
The looser the better!
Villeslgr - December 15, 2009
To each his own
Roger Dorn - December 15, 2009
I think your sarcasm detector was off for Villeslgr’s comment.
talonk - December 16, 2009
i think you’re innuendo detector was off for dorn’s
(also not sure innuendo is the right word here, but you know what i mean)
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
notthatnoise is correct
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
yes i know what you mean, only because of your innuendo.
Dawg Nuts - December 16, 2009
Gruden
Gruden was terrible in Tampa! He only did well with Tony’s team that he had built before Gruden came in. No one must have watch all his mistakes here in Tampa when he was a coach.
lifeatford - December 15, 2009
He was good in Oakland. He put together a great offense and transformed Rich Gannon from a career backup to league MVP.
As for mistakes in Tampa, he still won a Super Bowl. I would welcome such mistakes in Cleveland.
Bumblyjack - December 15, 2009
Jon Gruden has won games in the NFL with Brad Johnson, Jake Plummer, Chris Simms, Brian Greise, and Jeff Garcia. He turned Rich Gannon into a NFL MVP.
Gruden may be a lot of things, but a bad coach isn’t one of them.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
they went to the playoffs every other year with that list of QBs B19K mentioned
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
With the defense they had, they should have done better.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
Even if we do not strike a deal with Holmgren, his display of interest could help attract other quality candidates. Plus, it helps that Randy Lerner is willing to spend whatever it takes to get his guy.
I think meeting with Holmgren at least raises the bar to where it should be.
Bumblyjack - December 15, 2009
Dammit, ESPN’s ticker just scrolled some report by Mortenson about Holmgren but I missed it, anyone catch it?
Villeslgr - December 16, 2009
He is reporting that Mangini’s job would be in “considerable jeopardy” if Holmgren was hired. Pretty much what we have been discussing all day.
Mort is borderline worthless.
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
Yeah I just saw that. Talk about a worthless quote.
Villeslgr - December 16, 2009
If Holmgren means no Rex Ryan, then I’ll pass, thanks.
joeee - December 16, 2009
i think you mean rob ryan
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
Eventually, our problem with Rob Ryan is that someone will offer him a head coaching job. Not this year but if the defense keeps looking as good as last week maybe in 2011.
Brownsyup - December 16, 2009
And Rob’s problem is Rex, and how bad he’s been as head coach of the Jets.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
Regardless of Rex I still think he’ll get his shot.
Brownsyup - December 16, 2009
He’s been bad? They’re in the playoff hunt with a rookie QB . . . doesn’t seem too bad to me.
Buckeye Brad - December 16, 2009
And I believe they have the best rushing attack in the league.
JulioBernazard - December 16, 2009
They should be a 10 or 11 win team right now with their schedule and the run game he inherited. They haven’t had a win against a good team since week 2.
Also: what coach gets into a very public war of words with a player on a division rival? If you’re gonna trash talk, you had better win both games (not lose them both as Ryan did).
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
This I agree with. Being in the unfortunate position to have to watch the Jets every week, they are an okay team that has beaten an easy schedule (aside from the Pats week 2) and lost some easily winnable games. They will probably end up with 9-10 wins and miss the playoffs on tiebreak.
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
They have the Falcons, Colts and Bengals left. Unless the Colts roll over, i don’t see them winning another game.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
I gave them the Falcons game because of the injuries to Ryan and Turner. I also gave them the Colts game under the assumption that the Colts were going to sit starting week 15.
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
I forgot that Ryan and Turner were out.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
But he’s got a rookie QB who singlehandedly lost a couple games for them (which should be expected). Getting to 9 or 10 wins with that team certainly wouldn’t be doing a bad job, in my opinion. I don’t think most Jets fans were expecting more than that coming in to this season.
And do you really think the Jets should be 11-2 right now? Really? They’re a good team but not that good.
Buckeye Brad - December 16, 2009
They lost twice to Miami (who also has a first time starter), they lost to Jauron’s Buffalo team and lost to Jacksonville. That should have been 3 or 4 wins right there (2 at the very least).
11-2 or 10-3 or 9-4. That should be where they’re at with that schedule.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
exactly. ryan hasn’t been bad, but he hasn’t been good either. he’s been average to slightly below average.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
Mangini?
Ryan Kelsey - December 16, 2009
what?
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
when?
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
why?
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
whom?
talonk - December 16, 2009
How?
woodsmeister - December 17, 2009
… where.
SpecialBrownie - December 17, 2009
Whats bad about losing to Jacksonville? As of right now they are a playoff team. And in to be fair, NYJ shouldn’t have beaten the Pats in week 2. Brady had a really bad day and the Jets still needed a stop on fourth down to seal the game.
If you look at it in whole, the Jets are probably right where they should be. 11-2 would give the Jets the second seed in the AFC right now.
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
Right. No way the Jets should be 11-2; that’s simply ridiculous. That would be better than San Diego, and they don’t have that kind of talent. It seems like we’re pumping up the Jets just to criticize Rex Ryan and I’m not sure why.
Buckeye Brad - December 16, 2009
Jacksonville isn’t a good team. They’ve lost to the Seahawks and 49ers and were blown out by the 0-6 Titans. They did beat KC and St. Louis though (by a combined 6 points).
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
jacksonville hasn’t beat a good team all year.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
So they have beaten the teams that they are supposed to. That is something that a lot of team in the NFL (Cards, Steelers, Bengals for starters) can’t do.
Looking at their schedule they have one bad loss. They got pasted by Seattle on the road. Every other loss was on the road or against a fringe playoff team.
Jacksonville isn’t the best team in the NFL, but losing to them shouldn’t be a black eye for a team.
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
The 9ers have some talent and are a solid football team. Did you see them dismantle Arizona on Monday?
The Titans are a far cry from 0-6 now.
Losing to the Jags wouldn’t be like losing to us.
rufio - December 17, 2009
Did you see Ahmad Brooks?
If he has finally put it all together, he is going to be a force. Thank God it isn’t for Cinncy.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
Miami isn’t that bad — certainly not a “sure win” as you’re assuming. Jacksonville’s not bad either. I really don’t see how the Jets are so much more talented than those teams. Those aren’t bad losses.
Also, a first time starter who’s been in the NFL a couple years isn’t the same as a rookie. Not at all.
Buckeye Brad - December 16, 2009
i agree on miami. Buffalo is terrible, and the jets are the only decent team the jags have beat all year.
notthatnoise - December 16, 2009
It’s not that the Jets are more talented, it’s that their schedule has been a joke. They really should only have 2 or 3 losses (meaning they were in the games and probably should have pulled them out, not that they were more talented.)
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
Every team — well, except the Saints and Colts — loses games they when they were close at the end and probably should have won. A good percentage of NFL games are within one TD and either team could have won had a couple plays gone differently in the 4th quarter. So I don’t think it’s fair to act like the Jets are the only team to do this and assume it reflects poorly on their coach.
Buckeye Brad - December 16, 2009
I agree with this.
Look at Houston. I think they have lost three games in the last minute, and all but 1 game by less than 1 TD.
This is the NFL. Outside of a few teams (Colts, Saints, Chargers, Vikings) anyone can beat anyone on any given Sunday.
Rex Ryan hasn’t been the greatest HC, but he has been pretty good and fun to watch.
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
The jets seem to historically play better the first year of a head coach. I think their last head couch made the playoffs the first year, but i just can’t remember who that was…
holmes213 - December 16, 2009
I am just saying, I have watched all but maybe 1 of their games, all 60 minutes (kill me.) They are playing a bad schedule and have let games they should be winning slip away. Sanchez outside of the first couple games has really not been very good. Kellen Clemens this past weekend was even worse.
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
Definitely, thanks for the correction.
joeee - December 16, 2009
I am all in for Holmgren. However Mangini has actually grown on me, not fungus either. Sure I was brutal towards him early, but I have to admit I do like how this team is playing extremely hard even though the talent level is not strong. The team has been hit hard with injuries, Rookies have played well ( excluding Robiskie) and Quinn actually has shown improvement.
But to choose between the two, Holmgren is the winner by more than 10 lengths.
Grockcubs - December 16, 2009
Holgrem might give Mangini one more year to see how things turn up. Mangini did get all the draft picks for next year.
holmes213 - December 16, 2009
hate to be overly pessimistic, but I wonder what the opinion here at DBN will be after Mangini “leads” the Browns to an ugly loss against KC on Sunday.
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 16, 2009
I think the Browns are playing more confident, especially after the win, and can escape with a win. For the first time this season i think we have more talented player then the oponent.
holmes213 - December 16, 2009
the key word you used was “ugly.” i don’t think losing would put things back off the rails if they play hard and are competitive; if we lay an egg and lose ugly, that will be extremely discouraging.
Dawg Nuts - December 16, 2009
Agree. Expectations are now slightly higher, and some ugly losses to close out the season would not bode well for Mangini, to be sure.
johnnyphoenix - December 16, 2009
This.
At this point the product on the field matters a lot to me.
rufio - December 16, 2009
You really want someone who converted to Seahawks for life. He didn´t really want to quit that organization, I had a feeling he would have stayed on as equipment manager if he could have.
I´m just saying, I´m sure he would do an admirable job here, but make no mistake he´s a Seahawk.
mooncamping - December 16, 2009
until the orange and brown truck loaded with cash pulls into his driveway. then he’ll be bouncing around his front yard on a leash with a dog bone in his mouth.
Dawg Nuts - December 16, 2009
rec
JulioBernazard - December 16, 2009
John Clayton reported today that Seattle may not want Holmgren back:
“there is a small, powerful contingent in the Seahawks’ organization looking for a new leader, and it might block Holmgren’s chances.”
Pssst, Mike. We want you.
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
I’d just like stand behind Terry Pluto on this point:
rufio - December 16, 2009
I think a lot depends on how the team looks the last 3 weeks. We have 2 weaker opponents ahead and if we can win both those games, I’d be pretty upset if Mangini were cut loose at this point.
Roger Dorn - December 16, 2009
I am in an agreeing mode. I agree with both. As much as I was on Mangini early this season I to think he should get a shot next year.
However if Holmgren is hired its his baby. We will see. First things first lets get Holmgren in here.
Grockcubs - December 16, 2009
I think these last few games should really indicate whether or not Mangini should get a hot. I say YES, right now, but a few UGLY losses to close out the season and I think we’re all in agreement he’s not the man.
Ball is in HIS court, now. As it should be. Alright Eric, let’s see what you got.
johnnyphoenix - December 16, 2009
By ‘hot,’ I meant ‘shot.’ Sry folks.
johnnyphoenix - December 16, 2009
the ball, as always, is mainly in the players court. from last week, it’s clear mangini hasn’t lost the team. how they respond on the field after a huge win will be what makes or breaks mangini, fair or not.
Dawg Nuts - December 16, 2009
looks like they offered him some money … guess we shall see what happens
jsneides - December 16, 2009
CMON GUYS…FINISH THE DEAL….!!!
WE shall have MUCH rejoicing!
johnnyphoenix - December 16, 2009
i dont know if its still the excitement from the steelers win … but i am as excited as i have been all season about the browns right now. tis the life of a cleveland fan i guess … they bring ya up and then ….. well lets change the second part this time
jsneides - December 16, 2009
If what ESPN raido is saying is true and Holmgren is hired and he fires Mangini I can live with that part.But after that they said that if Jim Zorn is fired from the Redskins then Zorn would be Holmgren choice for a HC.Not to nit pick but if this has any truth to it Holmgren can stay away.Why would we want to dump Mangini for a HC that is worse then the one we have now.
Brownsfan4ever - December 16, 2009
No kidding. I kind of hope we don’t land Holmgren.
Maybe the best thing would be for Randy to leave well enough alone for now. Let Mangini run the show for another year and then make a decision.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
You would rather have Mangini than Holmgren?
Really?
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
I want stability more than Holmgren (or whoever else they might bring in).
I think a coach should actually fail before you shitcan him and start over again.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
I said it somewhere else, but it’s worth repeating.
What has Mangini really built? What would Holmgren really have to clean out of Mangini’s to start over? A few Jet holdovers? Mangini, right or not, came in and sold everything that wasn’t nailed down. He has improved the depth, but I don’t see anyone that he brought in that would be totally unuseable to Holmgren.
Going into the next offseason would Holmgren really want to get rid of any players that we will have here? Thomas, Stienbech, Cribbs, Mack, Rogers, DQ, or Wright? Who cares if he wants to get rid of anyone else?
The offense is still a complete joke. Defense has looked good at times but is still near the bottom in almost all rankings. I would much rather have Holmgren having a role with Quinn than anyone Mangini would/could bring in.
What has Mangini done to show that he is capable of building a good team? A couple nice picks in NY when he was working with Tannenbaum? Do you think the Jets are Super Bowl contenders?
At this point, having a proven commidity at building a franchise is 100x more important than stability.
99 times out of 100 I agree with you. But this is a perfect storm. Mangini has made this team into a complete mess from the front office down. A Hall of Fame coach is willing to come in and try to fix this situation.
I don’t care to sit around and wait for three seasons just to see if Eric Mangini can turn into half the coach that Mike Holmgren is. Maybe that’s just me.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
Really, probably only our D-line if he wants to switch to a 4-3. He probably will need an entirely new right side of the O-line, whereas I think one of Womack, Hadnot, or St. Clair could play RG if we got a RT under Mangini.
First, really? Anyone Mangini could bring in? Really.
Second, I thought Holmgren was to be hired to select a coach and/or GM and/or to stabilize the organization. I thought about 1% of his duties were supposed to involve face to face contact with Quinn. What exactly, would his role be?
He’s found great waiver wire guys, had a pretty good 1st round pick, stockpiled picks, and made hard decisions that he knew weren’t going to win him popularity contests. He’s beaten the steelers, and he has a 2 win team playing as hard as I can remember any 2 win team playing this late in the season. He was a part of acquiring some pretty good players in NY, and he learned from one of the defensive masterminds in the league in NE. He has a vision for the team.
That’s the problem. We aren’t talking about Holmgren as coach. Holmgren has had some nice coaches working under/alongside him, but he’s also had some guys I really wouldn’t want as HC.
I’m not saying Mangini is the answer, and if we were talking about Parcells—who is as close as possible as a guarantee that the Browns would soon become a respectable team—I would take him in a heartbeat. Holmgren isn’t a lock. You can make excuses about the mistakes he’s made, but the fact remains there is still some risk involved with bringing him in.
rufio - December 17, 2009
First, really? Anyone Mangini could bring in? Really.
Yes, really. I would love to hear the name of a QB guru that Mangini could bring in that matches up with Holmgren. Weis isn’t coming here. If there is someone I am forgetting, please let me know (that isn’t me being a d*ck, I am honestly interested).
Second, I thought Holmgren was to be hired to select a coach and/or GM and/or to stabilize the organization. I thought about 1% of his duties were supposed to involve face to face contact with Quinn. What exactly, would his role be?
Maybe I have a different idea then. Holmgren himself said that he wanted to be very involved with his new team. He doesn’t say how much, but imagine that he would be the GM. Maybe he hires a dummy GM like Ireland in Miami, but I think it would be Holmgren’s baby. I think he would have a very heavy hand in Quinn’s development.
He’s found great waiver wire guys, had a pretty good 1st round pick, stockpiled picks, and made hard decisions that he knew weren’t going to win him popularity contests.
The reason we found so many waiver wire guys was because we had the worst record in the league at the time. Granted Roth looks like a good player, but are Roth, Mack, Trusnik, Stuckey, and Moore reason enough to keep Mangini?
he learned from one of the defensive masterminds in the league in NE.
So did Romeo. Belichick has had a poor record of coaches leaving and finding success elsewhere.
Holmgren isn’t a lock. You can make excuses about the mistakes he’s made, but the fact remains there is still some risk involved with bringing him in.
I don’t think I have made any excuses for Holmgren. I don’t think that he is a lock to become the greatest thing on earth. I do think however that he is a much better person to lead this franchise than Mangini.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
I have no idea who Mangini could bring in, that’s my point. I don’t think you seriously do either. We both have expectations based on the coaches’ past experiences and what we think we know about their connections. That’s all we’ve got.
Even if Holmgren would be hands on, my understanding is that the czar position would be infinitely more involved in designing the offense/defense, being consulted as to how much offensive/defensive concepts to put in, and finding a QB VERSUS actually coaching up the QBs. I would consider that “very involved”.
Roth, Mack, Trusnik, etc. are not enough to prove that Mangini needs to stay. They are players he has acquired that prove he can already somewhat do the job. I would really like a real GM who can work with Mangini.
My point about Belichick isn’t that he is the be all end all of developing coaches. You don’t pick a guy because of the tree he was developed under. He does know what a well-run organization looks like, and has had success in one.
I wasn’t trying to say you’ve made excuses for Holmgren. I am saying there were some picks that were made under his watch and some contracts given in Seattle that people might need to make excuses for. Is he better than Mangini? I’m not entirely sold. You clearly are. I’m fine with that, and you seem to be in the majority.
rufio - December 17, 2009
I have a hard time believing that their is a respected GM out there that will work with Mangini.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
You act like Holgrem will just walk in here wave his hand and everythign will be ok.This team right now is behind the HC that we have.Just the way they are playing hard and giving everything they have has shown that Mangini still has the players on his side.Were Jim Zorn who more then likley would be hired here because he is Holgrens man lost control of his team after the 1st week.
I want a man that stands by what he is doing and can still keep control of the locker room.
Think Cribbs said it best last week that fireing Mangini at this time would be a big mistake because the players are now starting to buy into what he has been trying to sell them on.You fire him and bring in another person why should your players get behind a new person once again.Just because it is Holgrem that hired him does not mean the team will buy into another HC.
Brownsfan4ever - December 17, 2009
No. Never have I said that Holmgren will make everything great. I will say that I think Mike Holmgren is a better canidate to lead this franchise than Mangini. I don’t even think it is close.
And they will be behind the next HC if it isn’t Mangini. It’s called being a professional.
Where was this reported? And that team that Zorn lost control of in week 1 took the Saints to OT and housed Oakland by 21 the past two weeks. But Mangini beats the Steelers by 7 and he “has the team playing hard”?
Don’t make stuff up.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
I disagree.I don’t think Holmgren is all that great.He had the GM job taken away in Seattle because he did a bad job of it.He left Seattle because he did not want to work with the crap that he drafted there and was mad because the GM job was taken from him.
From all the reports it seems very real that it Zorn is fried from the Redskins that Holmgren has his man for were ever he is hired at.
You might think players will just jump ship because they tell them to.Not every player will be happy to change HC again and be pulled in a different direction again.
Just don’t get were everyone thinks that this is the best move I just don’t like the way it is playing out.Holmgren already said in a report that Seattle is his first choice so why are we chasing him? So we are happy to take a man that don’t really want to be here or we are his second choice.Sad day if you ask me.
Brownsfan4ever - December 17, 2009
Would you want to move out of your home? He has roots in Seatle.
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
Where has any of this reported? Who are the crap draft picks that he picked that are still in Seattle?
What reports? I expect Zorn to be fired, but I have not seen anything that says Zorn and Holmgren are a package deal.
Once again, what report? He has said that he is very excited to talk to the Browns. Never once have I seen, read, or heard that Seattle is his first choice. Many people believe that, but he has never said it.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
Like I said I listen to ESPN radio at work.The reports are from there.They even had a interview last month with Holmgren and he said Seattle is were he wants to be if they will have him back.
If a man said that no thanks I don’t need you if we are your 2nd choice.
I also belie that he is using us to try and push a answer from Seattle.If they say no then he will sign with us.If they tell him they want him no amount of money we offer will trump that.
So I say again no thanks move on to someone that want’s to be a Brown not someone who has there eyes on another job.
Brownsfan4ever - December 18, 2009
He is a proffesional. If he signs a contract with the Browns he will do what he thinks is best for the team. If not Lerner has a history of just canning people whenever he wants.
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
That’s simply ridiculous. Holmgren is approaching this the way any other person in his position would approach it — evaluate all his options and decide what’s best for him. We don’t need to hire someone who really, really, really wants to work for the Browns because I doubt there is anyone out there like that (at least not anyone worthwhile). If Holmgren thinks this is the best position for him then he will take the job and do everything he can to help the Browns win. To assume anything else is just wrong.
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
But it is ok to hie a guy that wants to really really be some place else and just hope that if he takes the job with us he don’t jump ship next yea because the job he really really wants is offered to him.It makes no sense wha so ever to hire a man that wants a job some place else and we are his 2nd choice.
Spinn how you want but your Holmgren glass’s is fogging your sight.
Brownsfan4ever - December 18, 2009
I know it is a business and that if a guy wants to come help the Browns, I don’t think we question his motivation as long as he does his job. But it is a small plus when a guy really wants to come to Cleveland because it is Cleveland. It isn’t the #1 thing you look for, or even the #5 thing you look for, but it’s a small plus. I don’t think you were arguing against that, it just needs to be said.
rufio - December 18, 2009
Maybe someone would want to come to Cleveland 12 years or so ago, but that city is not appealing anymore.
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
That is my poin.
Why do I even want a guy that has said on talk shows that he would love to be back in Seattle and that any front office job in Seattle would be is #1 choice.But hey the Browns are going to toss a butt load of cash at me so I will think about going there untill Seattle want’s me back is what it seems like to me.
Thanks but no thanks is all I am saying find someoone that if they start the job then they will be here not drop crap and run when there #1 choice comes calling in a year or two.
Brownsfan4ever - December 18, 2009
Seattle might find someone who is good for them for more than 2 years, and now Holmgren has a job. Too many variables in your thinking. Also i would hope that they wouldn’t give him a contract like Parcells, in that he can up and leave anytime he wants.
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
No, it’s not your point. He said it’s a “small plus”. You are saying it’s a requirement for the job.
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
If it came off like that it was not what I meant.I want a man that wants us as his first choice not a 2nd for when hi first choice does not pan out is all I am trying otosay.
Still don’t think this is the right man for the job but it is very clear that you do so just another agree to disagree.
Brownsfan4ever - December 18, 2009
No, that’s not your point. You want a guy who said he wanted to be somewhere else because he is good.
If their #1 choice comes calling in a year or two, you make your own job more attractive, or you find someone else who will do a good job and you appreciate what the first guy did.
That someone wants to be in Cleveland is a bonus.
rufio - December 19, 2009
rec
TheRealSlimShady - December 17, 2009
I want Mangini over Zorn.If Holmgren brings in Zorm as his HC we will be worse off then we are now.No matter how you want to spin it Zorn is by far a worse HC then Mangini.
Brownsfan4ever - December 17, 2009
This is all speculation at this point. One speculation i heard was Steve Mariucci. I could live with that over Zorn.
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
Zorn may or may not be a worse coach than Mangini. (I think Zorn is getting a bad rap for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That just isn’t a good team, and Snyder makes Jerry Jones look like a hands off owner sometimes.)
But the larger point is that the head coach doesn’t matter nearly as much as the organization above him.
Holmgren + Zorn (or any other yahoo) > Mangini.
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
Maybe it is just me just not sold on Holmgren as the rest around here.
Brownsfan4ever - December 17, 2009
I am really not that sold on Zorn or the WCO, especially against the steelers’ zone blitzes.
I do think Zorn is getting a bad rap because of Washington, but I am not sure he will be a good HC in the league. As an OC, fine. I really don’t want him as head coach, even if Holmgren was hiring him.
rufio - December 17, 2009
I know that Zorn is Holmgren’s boy, but I would be suprised to see him as the HC here in Cleveland.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
Agree. I could see him being brought in as OC, not as a head coach. He wasn’t ready to be a head coach with the Redskins and that’s a bad situation to be in to begin with.
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
I would totally be fine with that. Admittedly, he was put in position to fail in Washington, but I just think he would have more success as a HC if he took a coordinator/position coaching position and worked his way up again.
rufio - December 17, 2009
And by “I would be totally fine with that”, I mean “he can’t be worse than Daboll was at the beginning of the year”.
rufio - December 17, 2009
is it still the beginning of the year?
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
Exactly. Zorn is one of about 32,000,000 of Holmgren’s boys. And not one of the more impressive. He has a list of potential coaches that would want to work from him that is endless.
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
None of which would have had the wherewithal to do what needed to be done this year, to patch together a roster, and to keep that roster playing hard this late into a lost year.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
Now you’re just making things up. No other coach in the NFL would have the wherewithal to rebuild this roster and get the players to play hard all year — really? Is that really such a unique talent for a head coach? Many, many coaches in the history of the NFL have done exactly that.
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
So playing hard at the end of a bad season is not a good thing?
I am happy this team is showing up in the last 3 weeks and not laying down like last years team and yes that says alot about a HC that can keep the players playing and not giving up.
Brownsfan4ever - December 18, 2009
Its what a professional should do.
After all these guys are paid millions of dollars. The least they could do is play hard at all times.
Bernie19Kosar - December 18, 2009
But we also know that these professionals give up alot more when they are on a team that is bad.It is the HC job to keep them going to push them to finish strong even when there is nothing to finsh for.We see the cash paid out and think that it is easy to just stay hyped even if you are on a bad team and that is just not true.
Brownsfan4ever - December 18, 2009
Right, it’s what professionals should do. But that’s not always the case. This team could have packed it in week’s ago. I’ve been a detractor to many things Mangini has done this year, namely the QB situation, but give credit where credit is due: Mangini has a 2-11 football team that is still showing up and playing hard.
That said, I’m not sure he’s the only person on the planet that could have made this possible.
Western Reserve - December 18, 2009
That’s exactly the point. You can give Mangini credit for keeping the team playing hard all season long, and that’s fine, but I disagreed with the premise that Mangini was the only one who could have done that. That’s just absurd.
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
I would want to get back in the locker room after the game, so i would go out and play harder.
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
Name one former Holmgren Assistant who has ever a) been faced with the mess Mangini inherited (both in terms of roster and cap, b) who tore it down all at once, and c) still managed to get a rag-tag bunch of castoffs, practice squad players and waiver wire pickups to play hard and compete this late into a lost season.
Maybe that has happened, but I certainly don’t remember it.
Fact is, Mangini did the right thing given the roster and cap situation he inherited. He tore it down and took the hit early so that our situation would be much improved in 2010. How do we reward him? By giving him the boot? By handing the keys to a team that is playing like a team, that has 11 draft picks and zero malcontents to someone else? That’s bullshit. Had Lerner said a year ago, “here Eric, you be the asshole for a year…do what needs done so someone else can build it”, I’d have no problem with any of this. But that’s not what happened. Mangini was given a four year contract, and he should be allowed the opportunity to build the team, not get shitcanned for having had to ‘waste’ a year cleaning up Phil’s mess.
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
Just because a coach hasn’t been faced with that situation before doesn’t mean he can’t do it. I don’t know why a fomer Holmgren assistant would be any different than any other coach who’s worked in the NFL and gone through a similar situation.
And, just to be clear, I’m not arguing that Mangini should be fired, only that it’s silly to say that nobody else could have done what he did.
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
But you are also acting like Mangini hasn’t done what he has done, and several people here have acted like it isn’t an accomplishment or something that needs to be emphasized when weighing Mangini vs. another option.
Any coach could win a super bowl or could lead a team to an undefeated season or could luck out and look like a genius.
Mangini has motivated this team without malcontents despite media hate spew and a 2-11 record. Already.
Of course other coaches could motivate the team like Mangini has…but they would have to be good motivators.
rufio - December 18, 2009
How am I acting like Mangini hasn’t done what he’s done? What are you talking about?
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
Jon Gruden won with the Raiders. The Raiders.
Maybe if he had those same players playing well in weeks 1-12 we wouldn’t have to worry about a lost season.
Bernie19Kosar - December 18, 2009
Andy Reid – Eagles were 3-13 before he was hired.
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
Gruden didn’t win anything until year 3. And he didn’t have to turn over the roster like Mangini did. Gruden inherited a 24 year old who rushed for 1200 (4.8 yards/carry) the year before and HOF receiver coming off of a 1400 yard season.
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
Gruden took over a 4-12 team that had Jeff George as its QB.
He then had Donald Hollas, that isn’t a typo, and took the team to a 8-8 season.
The RB you refer to was Napoleon Kauffman. He never again touched 1,000 yards and was replaced in year 2 by Wheatley who was replaced by Garner after that.
Gruden didn’t have a losing season in Oakland. To say that he didn’t turn the roster over and win is not true.
Bernie19Kosar - December 18, 2009
He didn’t turn the roster over in year one. That’s the point. He didn’t have to. The Raiders weren’t in ‘cap hell’. And they had Tim Brown. And Eric Turner. And Darrell Russell and Lance Johnstone (who combined for 21 sacks on 1998). And James Jett (coming off a 12 TD season). And 9 draft picks (including the 4th pick, the 23rd pick and the 31st pick — and that’s after they traded a pick for Eric Allen).
It’s wrong to compare the situation Gruden walked into in Oakland to the situation Mangini walked into here.
Also: Kaufman missed three games due to injury in Grudens first year. Yes, he didn’t reach 1000, but 921 and a 4.1 yard per carry average beats anything we had on our roster last year. Unless you want to argue that Jamaal was a better back this year than Kaufman was in ‘98, I don’t see your point.
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
Even the most stupidly optimistic predictions for this season (read: my stupidly optimistic predictions for this season) had us at 8-8 and missing the playoffs. I doubt we would have had a run like we did in 2007 anyway.
rufio - December 18, 2009
When did I ever say it wasn’t a good thing? How could you possibly think that’s what I meant?
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
First, the coach’s job isn’t to rebuild the roster. Mangini was good at it, I think, but he is a coach first. If you want to hire Mangini as a GM, fine, I think he’d be good at that. But as a coach? He hasn’t impressed.
Ryan Kelsey - December 18, 2009
Why not hire a ‘czar’ last year then, and why hire a lame duck GM?
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
I think it was supposed to be Mangini’s show to run, and Kokonis was a figure head. (My oppinion) But then Mangini did not show Lerner what he was expecting and now Lerner is looking for another answer.
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
He wanted a strong coach model. i.e. Belicheck
I don’t think anyone would argue that his approach to last year’s hiring was good. Except maybe Mangini.
Ryan Kelsey - December 19, 2009
The Skins offense has been markedly better since Zorn relinquished play calling duties. This really concerns me and makes me want no part of him.
Roger Dorn - December 17, 2009
Yeah, I agree. I don’t want Jim Zorn in Cleveland.
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
QB coach?
TheRealSlimShady - December 17, 2009
Eh, maybe. Certainly not as HC. If he knows something besides West Coast Offense, perhaps.
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
If we get Holmgren I think he would want a West Coast Coach. Maybe the Eagles O-Coordinator?
TheRealSlimShady - December 17, 2009
I really don’t care for the West coast offense.
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
I really don’t either, but I feel like any person coordinating an NFL offense would have to do more than just WCO concepts this day in age.
Everyone has tendencies, so I don’t think we would be talking a “pure” WCO in any situation.
I don’t want to pass as much as the Eagles do, either.
rufio - December 17, 2009
I’d rather have that than the ‘No-Coast’ offense we have going on right now.
gahnki - December 17, 2009
I have heard the Eagles Offensive Coordinator mentioned
TheRealSlimShady - December 17, 2009
Why wasn’t something like this done last season. looks like everything is going to start fresh next year if Holmgren hired (that is Mangini and staff leaving). So in the end is this just a wasted year? Ya we got some draft pick and a shit load of J-E-T-S some are worth keeping but…Shit, I don’t know I like where Mangini was going.
The Brown Note - December 16, 2009
Reports are that Lerner really wanted Holmgren last year, but Holmgren was all set on taking 2009 off of football. (Another tidbit in the story above!)
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
You honestly think that Mangini would go after the same amount of former Jets this year? Seriously?
rufio - December 17, 2009
he is saying that we got alot of Jets this year. That is Manginis leagacy.
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
in cleveland
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
no i was just saying what he did this year, not that we were going to get more jets players next year….i didnt think there was anyone left on the team.
The Brown Note - December 17, 2009
Right, and I think it is pretty clear at this point that the idea was to get rid of guys who are talented but don’t give consistent effort, while bringing in solid pros who work hard, would be solid players and be high-character mentors for younger players.
Bowens, Mosley, Coleman, Elam, and Barton were all as good as the people they replaced, and they were clearly giving more effort than some of their predecessors like Andra Davis (who went to Denver, started doing something better, and all of a sudden became a good player again). Ratliff was brought in to be the #3 QB, and he’s held the clipboard well.
It sounded like a one year mission to me, at least on that scale. Mangini wanted to change the environment and to “change the culture”, so to speak, and then to add talent to the new environment with the stockpiles of draft picks he amassed.
rufio - December 17, 2009
Whether or not he can add the talent by himself remains to be seen, but it sounded like he had a plan and he’s executed the easy part of that plan to this point. It wasn’t like he went out and signed a bunch of expensive free agents who blew up in his face.
rufio - December 17, 2009
Agree with that. And that’s what many of us were baying for- getting rid of the “RAC Country Club” and getting some blue collar work in there.
As for the draft, too early but fro what we’ve seen so far it’s already a pass grade. If Robiskie and/or Veikune develop it could be very good.
LondonBrown - December 17, 2009
I think it is not only that Robiskie and Veikune aren’t playing a whole lot or making a huge impact, its their being inactive so often that has people up in arms—and that’s a fair criticism. You expect your 2nd rounder to be active on gameday, at least >50% of your 2nd rounders. Maybe they aren’t instant playmakers, but they sould be good enough to be active.
rufio - December 17, 2009
PLEASE DON’T FIRE MANGINI!!!!!
sww2109 - December 16, 2009
Does the Rooney rule apply to czars?
TheRealSlimShady - December 16, 2009
Better question is why do we still have the Rooney rule?
Yes, we would need to interview a minority canidate even though they would have zero shot at the job.
Bernie19Kosar - December 16, 2009
Dude, c’mon. No politics.
rufio - December 17, 2009
What isn’t political?
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
I didn’t think that was political.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
And it wasn’t meant to be.
Appologies if anyone was bothered by it.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
I’m pretty sure that qualifies. Probably best to leave a discussion of racism, “reverse” racism, affirmative action etc. elsewhere.
The second part could be offensive if read the wrong way (i.e. because the minority candidate would somehow not be good enough to get the job), but I know you meant that Lerner is in love with Holmgren and probably would only interview a minority candidate to satisfy the Rooney rule.
rufio - December 17, 2009
I actually think the Rooney rule is more offensive than mentioning the Rooney rule.
Roger Dorn - December 17, 2009
i don’t think him mentioning it would be considered political — it’s relevant to football. And I don’t think he meant that it was a bad rule, but that it wasn’t necessary any more because the number of minority head coaches and assistant coaches has greatly increased over the past decade. The race of a candidate isn’t even mentioned any more when discussing coaching candidates, which is the way it should be.
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
agree
deemac3248 - December 17, 2009
Right.
The Rooney rule was needed when it was put in. I think that NFL owners now realize that the only color that matters is green, as in playoff tickets.
Bernie19Kosar - December 17, 2009
Sure, owners don’t see race because racism is officially over.
Causality? And how is the lack of this sort of thing working out for college football (top link under 2008)? The head coaching ranks on men’s teams are held by white people on 89.2 percent, 88.7 percent and 92.5 percent of teams (all head coaching positions in Divisions I, II and III, respectively). It would seem to me that this day in age with the rate of turnover of coaches, with the amount of successful minority football coaches, athletes, etc. and the relative lack of overt racism, that those numbers would be just a little lower.
The Rooney rule isn’t about making actual hires (because the best coach who is the best fit who will do the best job, win the most games, and in some cases promote the best academic/family/character developing environment should get the job). It is—in theory—about breaking up what was a network/club that was formed in a racially biased way, and did not allow the same sorts of opportunities for minority candidates. It attempted/attempts to overcome this by forcing minority candidates into that network/club/discussion.
Whether or not that approach is necessary, ethically sound, racist in and of itself (either against non-minority candidates or minority candidates), or effective is all inherently political. Dorn could probably make a coherent argument that the Rooney rule is offensive, but it would have nothing to do with football except that the affirmative action discussion is taking place in football. It would largely be a sociopolitical argument. I don’t see how arguing as to whether or not not mentioning race helps promote the ideal of non-discrimination or helps mask and sustain a subtly racist status quo is not political.
The current Browns or football relevance began end ended with “yes, we still need to interview a minority candidate”.
rufio - December 17, 2009
-1
TheRealSlimShady - December 17, 2009
So the Rooney rule is political in no way and is appropriate to discuss here? Please do explain why.
rufio - December 17, 2009
t
The Rooney Rule is outdated and inappropriate.
There is absolutely no evidence that NFL teams hire according to race as opposed to effectiveness.
johnnyphoenix - December 17, 2009
The very fact that teams have to interview based on race is ridiculous and should be scrapped. We’ve moved on from that. While there was probably a time that it was relevant and necessary…it is doubly unnecessary and irrelevant now.
johnnyphoenix - December 17, 2009
SHAME on the NFL for promulgating such a racist and biased viewpoint which again, is best left in the past.
johnnyphoenix - December 17, 2009
It was implamented in 2003, it’s not that past.
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
OK guys, that’s enough. You’ve taken this way too far. Let’s just stop this discussion now before I have to delete comments.
Buckeye Brad - December 17, 2009
It’s not about thinking the NFL hires according to race, it’s about giving other’s opportunities for positions. The Rooney Rule if used correctly would benefit all potential hires.
Villeslgr - December 18, 2009
I completely agree with this sentiment — it’s inherently a political discussion.
I do agree with Brad, however, when he says:
For me though, the key words there are “mentioning it” — mere mentioning it. For a serious and thorough discussion of the Rooney Rule, if found to be germane enough for a discussion on DBN, it probably would deserve its own thread devoted entirely and solely to the topic, not among some off-hand remarks during a discussion on the potential hiring of Mike Holmgren. And even then, the issue is inescapably political in nature.
Western Reserve - December 17, 2009
I don’t think it does.
golanbatrac - December 16, 2009
This is from NFL.com
holmes213 - December 17, 2009
Yes it does. It was expanded a year or two ago to include GMs and heads of football operations.
Ryan Kelsey - December 17, 2009
In a word, yes. The NFL extended the Rooney Rule in the offseason to include front office hires.
woodsmeister - December 17, 2009
CZAR
If the chemistry was right I think GM Holmgren-HC Mangini (DC Ryan) would be a great team. Holmgren is an offensive guru so wouldn’t be treading too much on Mangini’s territory, although that would start looking thin with the larger than life job that Ryan is doing. Holmgren would be a cert to slot in a top notch young OC.
But what exactly is this Czar role? Is it a veteran voice of reason to stop hyperactive owners trashing their own franchises?
And who is the new GM going to be? Presumably a very much reduced position almost in a back-of-house scouting dept role? I can think of just the guy for that job- anyone know if Kokinis is still available?
LondonBrown - December 17, 2009
Ha ha, that’s great! Let’s start the “bring back Kokinis” fan club
bbstirrd - December 17, 2009
From what the PD said today, him leaving unsigned is not a good sign. I think this may be chalked up to another missed opportunity. I hope not but..
Red-Right-88 - December 17, 2009
Not Kokins but Holmgren ;)
Red-Right-88 - December 17, 2009
I read something on the ESPN ticker connecting us to Holmgren again today, but didn’t catch it all. So it wasn’t a sign we won’t end up hiring him.
rufio - December 17, 2009
That was with /irony full on….
We’re not interviewing Holmgren as GM, which is where I think we should be interviewing him.
LondonBrown - December 17, 2009
Browns, Holmgren to meet again:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jdyNec0k4lwogeYDuyDHAUKIbytQ
golanbatrac - December 17, 2009
I hope its soon, we all want this settled before Christmas…well Holmgren does.
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
Of course he does. If the Browns continue to play well, he has less leverage.
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
Want to keep a coach over one game
Ya beating the Steelers is a BIG thing if u play for Cleveland. However, if the players were not self motivated to begin with than they weren’t breathing. Browns hadnt beatin the Steelers in 10 games..the Steelers were vulnerable having losing 4 games in a row and that night the team that could run the ball and have the best field position (thanks Joshua Cribs)wins. Mangini had nothing to do with the win the players finally played determined. When Holmgren becomes the “Czar” other coaches who would otherwise turn down the job may consider out of respect for the man. The next chanting Cory Williams should do is : BILL COWER BILL COWER BILL COWER
Dawge - December 17, 2009
“Mangini had nothing to do with the win”? whut? Did he have anything to do with the losses? geesh.
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
Hey, if you’re going to dream, you may as well dream big:
Team President: Mike Holmgren
GM: Tim Ruskell
Head Coach: Jon Gruden
Offensive Coordinator: Jim Zorn
This would cost a boatload of money to Lerner but a dream is a dream after all.
Defensive Coordinator: Rob Ryan
gahnki - December 17, 2009
I have no idea what happened there. My computer is freezing up but it should really look like this:
This would cost a boatload of money to Lerner but a dream is a dream after all.
gahnki - December 17, 2009
I’ll Take Bernie As Offensive Coordinator and Brian Sipe as QB coach.
Heck bring in Rutigliano somewhere, he would do better that Koko!
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
This is a joke, right?
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
…
SpecialBrownie - December 18, 2009
No, why would it be, we all know Bernie could run circles around Dabol calling plays, even if bernie was half lit up.
And Sipe is QB coach for SD state. So why not?
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
Bernie Kosar has never been an offensive coordinator in his life at any level of football — why in the heck would you assume he would make a great coordinator for the Browns without any experience? Because he was a good QB two decades ago? Does that qualify him to be an offensive coordinator and call plays in the NFL?
While we’re at it, let’s hire Webster Slaughter as receivers coach, Hanford Dixon as secondary coach, and Clay Matthews as defensive coordinator. That will immediately make the Browns better!! Let’s get as many former players from the 80’s on the staff as possible — they must know more than our current coaches since they’ve been out of football for two decades!
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
someone is a bit cranky…
Sipe is doing the job as we speak, and Bernie, well we know he has a great offensive mind and I am sure could handle it. but hey, have at it.
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
I’m not cranky at all.
How do you know Bernie has a great offensive mind? How are you so “sure” he can handle the job of offensive coordinator? I’d really like to know.
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
Remember this was to a post about your personal Dream Team.
Bernie called his own game when he played, he seems very bright when analyzing the games, he might be too blunt for a coaching position but you wont know till you find out.
Did any of us know Ozzie Newsome was gonna be as successful as he is?
I agree about Gruden and Ryan, and Holmgren.
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
You’re exactly right; you don’t know until you find out. That’s why if Kosar wants to coach he should take a job as an assistant in college or as a QB coach, somewhere that he can learn from more experienced coach. If that goes well then maybe some day he can be an OC in the NFL. But you don’t hire a guy off the street who’s never called plays before in his life (as a coach — much different than when he was playing) to make him an NFL coordinator.
Ozzie Newsome wasn’t hired as a GM without any experience; he worked in the front office before being promoted to gain experience and prove that he could be an effective GM. I have no problem with giving someone a shot to see if they’re successful, but you don’t start at the top of the coaching ladder. That’s the point.
I just don’t know why fans assume that anyone who was successful as a player will make a good coach or executive because there are plenty of examples to the contrary.
Buckeye Brad - December 18, 2009
It’s purely and attachment we get from watching and rooting for them over the years, thats all. It’s possible Holmgren, if hired could mentor Bernie on the ins and outs of front office mgmt. Sipe is already doing it but loves the San Diego area too much to leave.
good points brad
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
nice avatar
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
To his credit, I don’t think Bernie would ever run into an 8 man front. Or allow the QB to check to a run to the other side of the 8 man front. This seems to be Daboll’s approach.
rufio - December 18, 2009
Corrected.
rufio - December 18, 2009
Rec
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
YeeChrist.
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
I guess Holmgren finds the Browns offer appealing:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4754555
Red-Right-88 - December 18, 2009
Yikes!
Double Yikes! Pack your suitcases Mangini…
golanbatrac - December 18, 2009
I see it as he might give Mangini a shot at next year, but i think it would come after a really good conversation between the 2.
holmes213 - December 18, 2009
The longer this goes on the more I feel as if the Browns are being played.
gahnki - December 18, 2009
John Clayton has reported that Seattle doesn’t want him back.
Buffalo is the only other position open right now, and I can’t find anywhere that shows him being interviewed there.
I think it is Cleveland or nowhere for Holmgren right now.
Bernie19Kosar - December 18, 2009
If that is true, what is he waiting for?
He’s already been offered the moon and the stars according to news reports. Randy Lerner has apparently offered him whatever jobs he wants, including head coach.
gahnki - December 18, 2009
He is probably waiting for the Browns, who need to satisfy the Rooney Rule and come up with a firm offer.
Ryan Kelsey - December 19, 2009
so pretty much we get him by default and only because no one else wants him.umm makes me want him even more… not!
Brownsfan4ever - December 19, 2009
Yay, desperation! Go Browns, GO!
golanbatrac - December 20, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.