ESPN's John Clayton Reporting Holmgren Will Fire Mangini

[peterbell]

@frenchie said:

Is there anything we (as fans and as members of the Brown's Board) can do to send a message to Holmgren and Lerner that we want EM to be given the chance he deserves? Can the Browns Board pin a thread where we can voice our concern and send it with everyone's comments to their respective offices?

Stan..i believe you have an assignment..Great idea Frenchie

[mopaji]

@peterbell said:

If Marty Morningwig is the Browns HC i'm done..mangini took over the most DYSFUNCTIONAL FRANCHISE in the NFL and has clearly made major strides to right this ship..Anyone who doesn't see that is kidding themselves, a Mangini hater or a low watt light bulb.or a dull tool in the shed.

I agree, that's why I cannot imagine why the Walrus wouldn't keep Mangini for at least another year. Holmgren has got to recognize progress when he sees it. And considering the fact that his contract may be for 10 years, it can only help him to give the coach another year. Now, if he were under a 3 year deal, I could see him wanting to get his own guy in here and sprint to the finish. Lerner has let him know with the 10 year deal that he is in it for the long-haul and so he shouldn't be rushed to make rash, uneducated decisions.

How does Morningwig still have job offers in the NFL?

[beefjerky]

I wouldn't be worried if it comes out of Clayton's mouth, but if Schefter says it, then that's when we should start to be worried about Mangini.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

[samoth]

Christ Mortenson yesterday said Mangini isnt 100% getting fired since he's a Parcells guy and Parcells and Holmgren are close friends and on the same page, so I don't think anyone really knows.

[Kosar_For_President]

[JoeSixPat]

@frenchie said:

Is there anything we (as fans and as members of the Brown's Board) can do to send a message to Holmgren and Lerner that we want EM to be given the chance he deserves? Can the Browns Board pin a thread where we can voice our concern and send it with everyone's comments to their respective offices?

I think the fact that a blackout was narrowly averted just a few weeks ago was taken by Lerner as a loud and clear message by the fans. Ticket sales and profits are nearly everything to an owner.

He responded by taking away GM duties from Mangini (or at least the power to choose the GM as he did with Kokinis) and bring in Holmgren to do what HOLMGREN thinks needs to be done - not the owner, and not the fans.

[JoeSixPat]

@samoth said:

Christ Mortenson yesterday said Mangini isnt 100% getting fired since he's a Parcells guy and Parcells and Holmgren are close friends and on the same page, so I don't think anyone really knows.

Mangini as a "Parcells guy" might be news to Parcells (who was invoked by Holmgren when explaining that firing a coach after 1 year can be justified.)

Mangini's only association was as a Defensive Assistant under Belichick when Belichick was reporting to Parcells.

You could make a better case that Mangini is a "Belichick guy" since the reason Mangini had the defensive assistant job in NYC was because Mangini impressed him as PR Intern and ballboy during his first stint in Cleveland.

You can say what you want about Clayton or anyone in the media but they wouldn't say something like that if they didn't have a source. Whether that source is right is debateable.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

@joesixpat said:

You could make a better case that Mangini is a "Belichick guy" since the reason Mangini had the defensive assistant job in NYC was because Mangini impressed him as PR Intern and ballboy during his first stint in Cleveland.

Mangini is a "Belichick guy". That's a well-known fact. Just because he hates Belichick doesn't mean he's not from his coaching tree. The only thing people are saying is that Mangini and Parcells have a relationship, albeit very loose.

[peterbell]

@joesixpat said:

I think the fact that a blackout was narrowly averted just a few weeks ago was taken by Lerner as a loud and clear message by the fans. Ticket sales and profits are nearly everything to an owner.

He responded by taking away GM duties from Mangini (or at least the power to choose the GM as he did with Kokinis) and bring in Holmgren to do what HOLMGREN thinks needs to be done - not the owner, and not the fans.

Taking away GM duties..geez`Joe thats a reach even for you..I believe I've read somewhere that Mangini and Parcells are close Mangini as is Parcells and Holgrem..Mangini and Reid..Reid and Holgrem.one big happy family.

[JoeSixPat]

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Mangini is a "Belichick guy". That's a well-known fact. Just because he hates Belichick doesn't mean he's not from his coaching tree. The only thing people are saying is that Mangini and Parcells have a relationship, albeit very loose.

I agree. But the notion that Holmgren wouldn't fire Mangini over his better judgement because 10 years ago Mangini reported to Belichick who reported to Parcells and Holmgren likes Parcells is ludicrous.

Holmgren's got his reputation as an NFL decision maker on the line. Furthermore he likely wants 100% credit for bringinig in one of "his guys" - likely someone familiar with the West Coast offense. I don't think he'll be swayed by such a weak association with Parcells. Heck - if Mangini were Parcells' own son I don't think that would influence Holmgren.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

@joesixpat said:

I agree. But the notion that Holmgren wouldn't fire Mangini over his better judgement because 10 years ago Mangini reported to Belichick who reported to Parcells and Holmgren likes Parcells is ludicrous.

Holmgren's got his reputation as an NFL decision maker on the line. Furthermore he likely wants 100% credit for bringinig in one of "his guys" - likely someone familiar with the West Coast offense. I don't think he'll be swayed by such a weak association with Parcells. Heck - if Mangini were Parcells' own son I don't think that would influence Holmgren.

I agree. It is a very weak association. I believe that Holmgren is keeping Mangini for two reasons, though. Firstly, Holmgren has already stated that it would be unfair to fire a coach after one year. If he then goes against his own advice and cans Mangini, it could cause some unwanted friction for him in Cleveland. Granted, not many people in Cleveland are happy with Mangini at the current moment, but to say one thing and do another is not a quality that is highly esteemed in any person, much less a person in a position of power. It's a very weak reason, I know, but Holmgren seems like a man of principle to me. Then again, it could just be wishful thinking in my book.

Secondly, Mangini has laid a foundation in Cleveland. We're on a streak, however small it may be. More important than our "winning streak" however is the fact that our players are playing for something, whatever it may be. Josh Cribbs has already gone on record endorsing Mangini and his system, and I believe he may be the voice of the locker room. Lord knows it's not BQ. For Holmgren to come in and take away Mangini, it would disrupt whatever plan he already has in place. Granted, it is early on, and it's not like we're exactly thought of as being playoff contenders. But the players are buying into Mangini's system, and if their trust is taken away, it would be hard for Holmgren to get it back.

We all know Holmgren wants to turn us around. It's good publicity, it would make for a good story, and it probably makes him feel good as well. But I don't think he's looking to come in, clean house, and start over fresh. Personally, I believe he's looking to come in, trim the hedges, and guide us to success. It would take too much time, and frankly, too much work, to start over fresh with an entire new staff. Plus, Lerner has to look at the figures. He's already paying two coaches who are no longer with us, and I don't think he's looking to pay a third. I think part of the negotiations between Lerner and Holmgren involved keeping Mangini around, but maybe just limiting his power.

I could be wrong, but that's just my gut feeling.

[Flugel]

@mopaji said:

I agree, that's why I cannot imagine why the Walrus wouldn't keep Mangini for at least another year. Holmgren has got to recognize progress when he sees it. And considering the fact that his contract may be for 10 years, it can only help him to give the coach another year. Now, if he were under a 3 year deal, I could see him wanting to get his own guy in here and sprint to the finish. Lerner has let him know with the 10 year deal that he is in it for the long-haul and so he shouldn't be rushed to make rash, uneducated decisions.

How does Morningwig still have job offers in the NFL?

GREAT back and forth here guys.

SOME guys make ideal coordinators when a STRONGER presence above them is the Head Coach. That doesn't in any way shape or form mean a Greg Williams, Gary Kubiak, Dave Wannestadt, Dom Capers, Lindy Infante, Mike Martz or Wade Phillips is sure bet to be a GREAT Head Coach. The Marty Morningsickness rumor is about the cruelest news you can give Browns' fan finally enjoying some degree of progress and momentum. If that goes down, I'm gonna kidnap our owner and hide him in the tropics where the Rooneys stashed their HGH doctor out of reach from investigations. Randy's prolly looking for another hobby with that inheritance anyway.

I still can't even fathom Mike Holgren already had the job before he even met Lerner. The guy shows up to Cleveland knowing the moron owner has ZERO intentions of interviewing 1 other person. All he's thinking about is how much cake he can leverage out of our version of "Brewster's Millions." It's the same knee jerk criteria without a shred of showing me as a fan he's learned a freakin thing.

I've heard some GOOD sources saying Parcels was interested in coming here. If you want a PROVEN record of turning losers into winners here's what I have for you from the Parcels resume:

1) 1st season w/ Giants 1-15 before they won 2 Superbowls and frequented playoffs

2) 1st season in NE he drafted Bledsoe and they went 1-15 before they would make a Superbowl & frequent playoffs

3) The Jets hired him because they were soft and he had Vinny Testaverde lead the to a Conference Championship Game at Denver

4) He took over Jerry Jones' Dallas in Chains and made them playoff material

5) The Dolphins were 1-15 just 1 year before they were Tuna'd. 1st year there - they improved to 11-5 and playoffs.

Does that look like a guy that firmly understands how to shop for winners and sic em?

- Tom F.

[WilsonTheVolleyball]

This is hilarious with all the sudden Mangini love. The guy beat the Steelers once and he's the hero of Cleveland. All this talk about "progress" is hilarious. I recall RAC making huge progress with the 2007 Browns...

Sorry to say, but I thought Browns fans were smarter than this. You guys are the football center of the United States and a class A town. To be satisfied with Mangini is to be satisfied with mediocrity at best. Cleveland deserves better, IMO.

[Alo]

A year ago, we were talking about how the Savage-Crennel experiment failed because there was a disconnect between the players brought in and the ones desired by the head coach.

Now, people here think it'd be desirable to have Holmgren and/or his chosen GM drafting 3-4 personnel for Mangini, something they've likely got little experience doing. Similarly, Mangini would be asked to oversee a WCO or, like Crennel, give up all of his authority on the offensive side of the ball.

Do we really want to go back to the Crennel-Savage situation? Are you all confident that Mangini and Holmgren both are great & magnanimous football guys, to the point that they can make a management structure that screwed up the previous regime work?

It seems like we're unlearning the lessons of 2005-2008. And I'm not sure we should expect Holmgren to wipe clean his memory bank as well: he's already said that the existence of factions in Seattle - people who were already there before him vs. people he brought in - affected the quality of his 1999 draft class.

I'm not sure he'll want to repeat that by having his OC calling for WCO playmakers, while Mangini is screaming that a certain player is a perfect fit for a defensive scheme Holmgren isn't intimately familiar with. Absent some luck, which the Browns haven't had much of as of late, that seems like a recipe for disaster.

[Kosar_For_President]

@alo said:

A year ago, we were talking about how the Savage-Crennel experiment failed because there was a disconnect between the players brought in and the ones desired by the head coach.

Now, people here think it'd be desirable to have Holmgren and/or his chosen GM drafting 3-4 personnel for Mangini, something they've likely got little experience doing. Similarly, Mangini would be asked to oversee a WCO or, like Crennel, give up all of his authority on the offensive side of the ball.

Do we really want to go back to the Crennel-Savage situation? Are you all confident that Mangini and Holmgren both are great & magnanimous football guys, to the point that they can make a management structure that screwed up the previous regime work?

It seems like we're unlearning the lessons of 2005-2008. And I'm not sure we should expect Holmgren to wipe clean his memory bank as well: he's already said that the existence of factions in Seattle - people who were already there before him vs. people he brought in - affected the quality of his 1999 draft class.

I'm not sure he'll want to repeat that by having his OC calling for WCO playmakers, while Mangini is screaming that a certain player is a perfect fit for a defensive scheme Holmgren isn't intimately familiar with. Absent some luck, which the Browns haven't had much of as of late, that seems to me like a recipe for disaster.

These are some pretty big assumptions, Alo. We really don't know what is going on behind closed doors. Might turn out to be dynamic in a good way with Mangini?

I think the thing to think about here is Holmgren has never been GM full time. I think this is a very different situation then was in Seattle. I think who ever is coach, we need to focus on the fact The Walrus is our GM full time. Take the Steelers for example, the GM built a team you could bring in any coach and succeed. Look at the Colts, they are 14-0 without Dungy. You know.

I'm a glass is half full type of guy, unless I am talking to the Steeler fag trolls on the board.

[Alo]

@kosar_for_president said:

These are some pretty big assumptions, Alo. We really don't know what is going on behind closed doors. Might turn out to be dynamic in a good way with Mangini?

It might work, just like the Savage-Crennel had a chance of working. In the end, it didn't, proving that the likelihood of success is greater if you have a GM & HC of like minds and compatible temperaments working together to build a successful franchise.

Pioli-Belichick was the model we were sold a year ago. Ultimately, however, the Kokinis-Mangini pairing didn't work. Now, we're in a situation in which people here are arguing that Holmgren would be making a huge mistake if he gets rid of Mangini.

My argument is that it could be an even bigger blunder for Holmgren to retain a coach whose temperament is incompatible with Holmgren's, or whose philosophy and personnel preferences are vastly different from what the Walrus wants.

Ultimately, it's up to Holmgren to determine if that's the case. But the resolute proclamations here that Holmgren must retain Mangini seem to deny him the right to make that important decision.

Like some here, I'm kind of ambivalent about the Holmgren hire. But if we're now using the Parcells czar as a model, he should be given free latitude to retain or, alternatively, bring in a coach he thinks he can work with. Similarly, we should hope that he brings in a personnel man who can insure our draft record improves, something I fear we may not get if the rumors about Randy Mueller becoming our GM are accurate.

[Kosar_For_President]

Agreed Alo. I hope it could work, but as long as Mangini knows The Walrus is the new boss. I think it would be a step back if we get rid of Mangini at this point. If Holmes can concentrate on drafting, it think it would be beneficial. The players in place seem to be responding better in recent weeks. Not saying it's the end all, just saying the players that are here now are playing for their coach. If those players are in place, the new draftees will buy in too.

Just a thought.

[Alo]

And for an example of how Mangini and Holmgren might not be philosophically simpatico, here's Holmgren talking on his radio show (10/02) about committing to starting quarterbacks:

Mike Holmgren said:

"If a team decides to go with a quarterback - if it's Brady Quinn in Cleveland, if it's Jake Delhomme in Carolina, wherever it is - once you make that decision as a head coach, you have to do everything in your power to commit to that kid. He cannot feel like he's looking over his shoulder every time he throws an interception.

And so he commits to you, and you commit to him. And you live through the bumpy things together, but then you have to see progress, you have to see it going in the right direction. It's not the civil service, where it's a lifetime deal. You gotta prove it, you gotta prove that it's working and improving.

I've never been one with the quick hook, and I think you make a mistake when you do that."

I bet quotes like these are a big part of why Clayton is convinced these Holmgren will fire Mangini. Even if the BQ thing is in the past, I doubt Holmgren trusts Mangini to handle whoever's our starting QB next year, whether it's Quinn, a veteran, or a rookie.

[Flugel]

@alo said:

It might Like some here, I'm kind of ambivalent about the Holmgren hire. But if we're now using the Parcells czar as a model, he should be given free latitude to retain or, alternatively, bring in a coach he thinks he can work with. Similarly, we should hope that he brings in a personnel man who can insure our draft record improves,

- Alo

Very good points!

IMO, the difference between Parcells taking over 1-15 vrs Holmgren taking over this team is in the response the Head Coach is getting from his players as the season went from halfway point toward the end. There's improvement, momentum, a winning streak and we even beat Pittsburgh for the first time in the last 13 tries. Not only that, but we did all this after some key players were injured and/or traded even in spite of some shakey QBing. If the 2nd half of the season went like the first half of the season - I think Holmgren would arrive at the same no-brainer Parcells arrived with changing Head Coaches. Alo, I'm actually enjoying what I'm seeing from this team.

Do you want to know what has never waivered this year? Discipline in the form of how infrequently we're penalized. It's so much better than recent years where it felt like it was always either first 1st and 15 or 1st and 20. Not only that but I don't think I've ever seen out punt teams pinning opponents inside their 10 yard line as much as I have seen this year. We've done that most recently without Dave Zastudil. If that's not enough, our return game is second to none.

I can't even begin to tell you HOW MUCH a young player like Rubin has improved from last year to this year. He used to stand straight up at the snap and lose position. NOW he's playing with great leverage and doing a nice job on the nose. That's coaching. How about backups stepping or guys playing new positions while we don't see any dropoff?

I've been impressed at what Mangini has done with the deck he was dealt. It's easy to forget we only had 5 draft picks in 2008 and we were only slated for 4 draft picks in 2009. If you look at how many 2008 starters we have starting at this time on offense here you go:

1. Joe Thomas

2. Eric Steinbach

3. Lawrence Vickers

If we look at 2008 starts on defense starting now - here you be:

1. Wimbley

2. Williams

3. Wright

4. McDonald

Out of 22 starters from 2008, there's only a continuity sum of 7 remaining today. Just when you think it couldn't get even more bizaare, our starting place kicker and punter were/are out for extended periods.

Speaking of good scouts, I'm looking forward to reading all your goodies about the top prospects from now until the draft. You spoiled us last year with countless video clips and informative articles. There won't be a shortage of things to talk about now that we're already into the Bowl Season.

- Tom F.