Dawgs By Nature

About time. His thoughts on the Harrison hit are the least of my concerns though.

johnf34 - December 14, 2011 reply

Did they ask him about the Harrison hit yet?

SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2011 reply

The right move.

Man Holmgren sounds pissed at these reporters.

extremely

He hates Cleveland media. He was about to say “I feel… like the media is against the team”…

He is immediately the best head honcho we’ve had. He realises the media is among our top 3 problems.

He realises the media is among our top 3 problems.

The sports media is garbage. But “the media is among our top 3 problems” is bullshit.

The sports media is what I meant. Grossi, most of ESPN, MKC to an extent. I shoulda been more specific. I was multitasking.

Among our top 3 problems?! Not a chance. We are talking about the Browns, right?

Okay, maybe I exaggerated. They are among our biggest off the field issues.

I agree with what chitown browns fan said below. If we had a good team this wouldn’t be an issue at all.

A little hyperbole is warranted sometimes. The Cleveland sports media is indeed one of the biggest off-the-filed problems though. They go out of their way to create bs controversy. I compare it to the LA sports media, which is indeed a little sensationalistic like all media, but they are nothing like this.

They go out of their way to create bs controversy.

This is true. Again, the media is shit. But they are a bigger issue than our run D, WRs, QB play, o-line, playcalling, I could go on…?

Agreed. It was hyperbole by TLO, but warranted hyperbole.

Fair enough.

The only sports media around here I like is Terry Pluto and 92.3 The Fan. I really do miss virtually uninterrupted music though.

I am really starting to like 92.3 the fan. Rarely tune into 850 anymore.

I’ll have to try them. I listen to 850’s online stream, but the signal is garbage in the car. When I’m driving I’ve been listened to 106.5 The Ticket. They are decent, but not nearly as interesting, compelling, or entertaining as 850.

Simmsinns - December 15, 2011 reply

850 is often entertaining, but often much more of that than informative or insightful really (looking at you Fedor). 92.3 is new and I don’t know if the signal reaches you, but you can listen to it live online (just checked, wasn’t sure)

In life, people tend to kick you when you’re down and sing your praises when you’re up. The media is a hyperbolic version of that treatment. If the Browns win games, the local media will be singing Zippity Doo Daa out their a**holes.

winning cures everything

Lots of concussion questions. From what I’m hearing, Holmgren expects no punishment from the league for anything involving Colt.

Colt wasn’t displaying any concussion symptoms until after the game.

Tony Grossi continuing to be a pompus ass.

Holmgren is starting to get very irritated.

Holmgren just had to collect himself mid-sentence. These reporters are being repetitive and are asking him the same questions twenty different ways.

If Browns players should have retaliated for Harrison’s hit: “I don’t coach that way. I know Pay doesn’t coach that way. As hard as it is, you walk away … That’s not the right thing to do, that’s not how I want our team to be.”

Independent neurologists at games came up during the meeting with the league. No word on anything changing regarding that going forward.

Regarding “systems failures”: The NFL guidelines for concussions failed, not anything specific to the Browns.

Toni Grossi’s tone is so whiny. I would hate answering his questions even if they weren’t loaded.

For anyone wondering, Pat Shurmur will be the HC next season. These reporters are starting to piss ME off. Poor Holmgren.

Holmgren: I want you to know that we tried to do everything the other night to protect our players."

Wow. This has been a lot more interesting than I thought it would be.

I want to see Holmgren shoot lightning bolts out of his eyes at Tony Grossi.

Holmgren: “I would ask you to believe me a little bit and trust in how we’re doing things … I’m not gonna lie to you, we will get you the proper message at the appropriate time.”

Lost in translation: Get off my lawn, a-holes.

Mike Holmgren: “No one on the sidelines saw McCoy get hit.”

SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2011 reply

Looks like no one on the sidelines saw Seneca get to the 5 either.

tribe71 - December 14, 2011 reply

Oh jeez.

That really surprised me, but I guess it’s possible?

but I guess it’s possible?

Probably not. But if it is possible, and it’s true, that’s even worse.

Yeah, how the hell is no one watching the play on the field? Especially the person who has the ball.

Again, it seemed pretty clear to me he was referring to the medical staff, not the coaches. The coaches didn’t realize the medical staff didn’t see the hit. Sounds right to me. If the medical staff saw the hit, there is no question that they would have been more cautious. The coaches then relied on the medical staff, not knowing that that hadn’t seen what happened on the field. That explanation makes a lot more sense than any conspiracy theories that people are going with.

Why the hell is our entire medical staff not watching the play on the field? Not one guy on the medical staff, really?!

Even if they hadn’t seen the play it’s no excuse. A player was taken out of the game and brought up for medical evaluation. That is something that should always be handled with all seriousness and the utmost caution for the player’s health. Either way they dropped the ball big time.

Yep.

Either way they dropped the ball big time.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with that, even Holmgren. Putting a guy in when he has a concussion is obviously a big breakdown, especially under these circumstances. The point is that the system broke down for a reason and we figure that reason out.

Why the hell is our entire medical staff not watching the play on the field? Not one guy on the medical staff, really?!

I don’t see what that is hard to believe.

I see it as a potential problem with the medical staff.

Don’t forget, Marecic and Watson had already left the game with concussions and were being evaluated. Also, Thomas was sick, and there were other injuries to players (can’t remember off the top of my head).

bbstirrd - December 14, 2011 reply

At no point should someone on the med staff not be fully read for any successive play to what is happening on the field, no matter how many players are hurt.

Nobody said they weren’t ready. They went out to evaluate Colt immediately after the play. But when the hit happened, they were working on other players. And I’m not trying to exonerate everyone for what happened. Colt shouldn’t have gone back in the game.

bbstirrd - December 14, 2011 reply

I didn’t hear about Thomas being sick – what was that about?

flu, apparently.

JOE THOMAS was just leveling the playing field for mere mortals.

Well it is Christmas

What’s the point of hte medical staff if they aren’t be informed of what happened on the field. How are they supposed to do their job correctly? This is very basic.

if the medical staff has to rely solely on the reports of the players as to what happened, then why even have a medical staff?

I’m pretty sure that he meant the medical staff — not Pat or the other coaches.

That’s what I assumed.

As he said, the medical staff was working on other players — there were a lot of issues going on so that sounds right.

If true, it’s still dumb.

What does that mean? The medical staff was dumb for working on the sh!tolad of other players who had issues rather than stopping to watch the game?

It’s dumb that they aren’t being informed of what is happening on the field. The medical staff cannot perform their job fully if they are either not watching or not being told what happened.

I agree with that. I thought you were saying it was dumb that they weren’t watching the game.

I imagine they will implement a new protocol for at least having one med staffer watching at all times.

honestly, how about a “medical coordinator” up in the booth? if it’s so hard to get real reports of what’s happening with injuries, and so hard to have enough medical staff on the field-level to be able to actually watch the plays, let’s have someone w/ no particular treatment responsibilities watching and helping.

that said, i can’t believe this is that hard.

Getting full information to the medical/training staff through some kind of independent source was one of the issues that he said the organization discussed with the league and union.

Preposterous statement.

Seriously, it is an utterly ridiculous statement. All you have to do is watch the replay of him running straight toward the Browns sideline and getting leveled 5 yards away from the coaches and staff who are clearly standing right there watching everything unfold.

burntorangeandbrown - December 14, 2011 reply

His last statement was odd to me. It’s one thing to say Shurmur needs another year, and another to say he’ll be around here for a long time. I want to have one coach for more than two years as bad as anyone but if Shurmur hasn’t truned the ship by mid-season next year its time to go.

I caught that too, but if I was just in a room with those people for almost an hour I would say anything I could to get out, so I didn’t pay it much attention.

turn the ship?!? The boat is sinking.

tribe71 - December 14, 2011 reply

I liked the statement because it defuses the coaching carousel question and takes pressure off everyone in the organization. It doesn’t preclude Holmgren from making a coaching change next year if he feels it’s the right thing to do There’s a difference between public relations statements and the internal workings of the organization. If Holmgren were to fire Pat at the end of next year for non-performance, he could always say that things changed, if that were the case.

If he would have said, “We’re going to evaluate Pat’s position at the end of the season or at the end of next season,” there would have been an endless subsequent line of questioning from today forward regarding where Pat feels he is relative to his job security and where Holmgren feels Pat is relative to his progress.

good insight. I guess I feel like he could have said… ‘lets give shurur an offseason, somemore talent on offense. He hasn’t had a fair shot at HC since he hasn’t had an offseason.’
But like you said. that would have lead to more questions.

Thanks. If I were in the media, and Holmgren said, “He hasn’t had a fair shot at HC since he hasn’t had an offseason,” I’d ask right away, “Then how do you explain the success of Harbaugh in San Francisco?” It’s a slippery slope.

Publicly, the head honcho should always show confidence in the personnel he’s chosen for two reasons: 1. You don’t want your coaching staff looking over their shoulders all year wondering if they’re going to have jobs a la the Miami Dolphins. It destroys their confidence and the confidence of your players in the coaching staff. You want the coaches and players focused on the task at hand, i.e., working to improve the football team. 2. You don’t want to open the Pandora’s Box of questioning regarding a coaching switch unless you’ve, in fact, made the decision to move in a different direction.

As for more talent, he did say the drops and errant snaps were game changers this year and that he and Heckert would address the media at the end of the year.

While he would never say it, if he believes drops are the team’s biggest problem, we need a new President.

He didn’t say they were the biggest problem; he said they and the errant snaps have changed the outcome of several games. But, I don’t follow your reasoning. If he had said that, why would that precipitate a change in the president?

It was an exagerration on my part, but my hope is that he believes the reason we are losing is inadequate talent at key positions like QB instead of dropped passes and the long snapper.

I’m sure it is.

emily522 - December 14, 2011 reply

He said that the team could have been 7-6 right now, and people would have been feeling better about the team’s progress if it weren’t for some drops and snapping issues. He also said that Parcells always said, “You are what you are,” as a counter to that reasoning and any excuses given for a team’s record. I agreed with the drops and snaps and how that’s affected the outcomes of several close games, and I know and respect your stance on the QB issue. I didn’t think he was meaning for anyone to read between the lines or anything when he said what he said.

you know what, for all of Colt’s shitty play, we could be 7-6 without some of those key drops/botched snaps.

chitown browns fan - December 15, 2011 reply

Yes. Exactly. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

eh … a lot of this counter-factual stuff is pretty difficult. we convert those drops/snaps, who knows what the other teams do.

DontCallMeJoey - December 15, 2011 reply

Its hard to know, but we were definitely a good break or two away from winning a few games.

DontCallMeJoey - December 15, 2011 reply

true enough. and another couple of breaks away from losing a couple of games. i tend to think it all evens out.

Yup, plus the same thing could have been said about last years team, maybe even more so. Coach still got fired.

North Coast Flea - December 15, 2011 reply

good point.

i think this is dead on, in addition to the fact that i believe (and i gather that holmgren believes) that a new coach of a dogshit team deserves at least three years to implement his system, get “his” players, etc. before being tossed on the trash heap. there are some caveats there, like the team has to show reason for optimism, but constant and reactionary turnover is bad for everyone.

What else is he going to say? “Pat Shurmur will be here for another year or two — hopefully more, but we’ll see . . .”

Sometimes I think the reporters would be happier if he said “I have no damn clue what I’m doing and Pat was fired just before this conference. Have at him, ya vultures!”

I am usually hard on the media, but I think they are being fair with this situation. I think it’s reasonable to exonerate Shurmur in this situation given he was told by the staff McCoy was okay to go back in. I still take issue with him putting McCoy back in mid-series after that kind of hit, but he was cleared medically, so Shurmur should not take blame specifically for the concussion risks.

I still just have a really hard time believing that no one on the medical staff was aware that McCoy got hit in the head. Even if they were tending to someone on the sidelines, why were they not made aware of it? Completely bizarre still.

Also found this part of Grossi’s live blog interesting…

Holmgren admits he may have wasted a year by waiting to change coaches, but says he doesn’t regret doing it. He is very, very defensive today. “You’re either with us or you’re not. I’ll be honest with you …” He stops himself from saying something he didn’t want to say

That was my very favorite part of the conference.

He went on to essentially threaten the media with future Browns playoff tickets.

The problem with the media here is that they seem to want Holmgren to put the blame squarely on someone and will only be happy if he does so. His answers all made sense, and they all point to a systemic breakdown where you can’t just blame one person. Clearly, our team does take concussions seriously as evidenced by past practice (even in this game), but the system broke down here and that is a big problem and shows maybe we aren’t taking them seriously enough. But what the media seems to want is for Holmgren to come out and fire someone or threaten someone’s job or — even more bizarelly — admit he made a mistake by not firing Eric Mangini earlier. The media is certainly right to ask as many questions about this situation as they want, but they don’t seemed satisfied with the answers unless the answer can be a sexy story for them. That’s my problem with Grossi, et al., here.

But what the media seems to want is for Holmgren to come out and fire someone or threaten someone’s job or

I wasn’t able to watch, but did someone in the media suggest that someone should be held accountable in this way or are you deducing that much?

Not explicitly that I saw. His general answer regarding the concussion was that it was an NFL policy systemic breakdown that just happened to manifest itself during a Browns game and that the Browns personnel were justified in their collective action vis a vis that flawed policy. He mentioned that the league, the team, and the union had a constructive conversation. I think the media was hoping that someone organizationally would be held personally accountable, but none of the reporters during my time viewing the presser asked point blank.

I’ll be honest with you …F-you, go root for Buffalo.

Villeslgr - December 14, 2011 reply

Another funny line from the presser: “If we’d just snap the damn ball and catch some passes, we’d be 7-6.”

bbstirrd - December 14, 2011 reply

Which front office didn’t want to bring in people who could “catch some passes” but rather would just pay the guys we have?

You know if you’re Greg Little right now, and the president of the organization is mentioning dropped balls, you’re feeling a little self-conscious.

this is such an awesome point

Haha true, we were told the WRs were not a problem by GM before the year.

Was Homgren talking to Grossi when he didn’t answer the question about leaving Seneca on the field? He said something about “the way you ask questions that imply something – don’t do that”. God I hope he was talking to Grossi.

DaveDawg09 - December 14, 2011 reply

Yes. At least it was Grossi who asked why Seneca didn’t stay in the game.

The way Grossi asked the question was so Douchey though. He was just trying to get Holmgren to second guess the coaches decision to make a story out of it. Holmgren’s answer was perfect. He told him – that’s a question for the coach. Exactly. Instead of wasting time in the rare instance that you have access to the President of the organization by asking loaded questions, why not do your employer a favor and ask something – ANYTHING valuable.

DaveDawg09 - December 14, 2011 reply

You are right about Grossi’s motive, but I would have asked the same question and have been wondering the same thing. I also think Holmgren gave the right answer.

If Grossi would have worded the question so as not to sound like he was setting Holmgren up – he may have gotten a response. How about “Mike, you know Seneca better than anyone on the coaching staff from your time together in Seatlle – if you were on the sidelines coaching, would you have left him in there for the rest of the series?”
Holmgren may have answered that – then Grossi could spin it in the paper any way he wanted, but he had to sound sneaky.

DaveDawg09 - December 14, 2011 reply

Exactly.

Damn if Holmgren would do this more often a lot of the complainers would maybe stop. I loved that he told the media you’re with us or you’re not. I think some of our fans should do the same.

I liked that he said he’s disappointed with the offense but they are young and still learning but if they don’t score more points next year he’s going to have a problem.He also hinted at some off-season changes.

i don’t love the with-us-or-against-us stuff, personally. while i do like holmgren and the way he conducts himself, you can be a fan of the team, or at least not an opponent of the team, and still ask, “uh, what the fuck did we hand the ball to the 3rd string tight end on the 6 yard line for?” there’s good an bad in everything, and pointing out or expecting answers for or looking for accountability related to the bad doesn’t mean “you’re not” with the team.

i’m not saying the media doesn’t act like a bunch of grundles 92% of the time, or that the bellyaching among some fans doesn’t get old, but it’s not as simple as black or white.

and he does it himself here. he’s disappointed with the offense … he would have to qualify as “against” in the polar world of with us or against us.

I get you, and agree. I guess its more like people calling for Shurmur’s head before all the facts come out or wanting him fired after less than one year. It just gets frustrating that we can’t give them time to build, hell Alex Smith has been starting in SF for 7 freakin years. Now I don’t think we should go that far but we’re always calling for heads so quickly, it would be nice if the media and fans just accept this is year 1 of something new and try and stomach it as best we can.

Agree

OldTimeDawg - December 14, 2011 reply

Calling for a coaching change after one year or 2 is absurd, in my opinion.