ESPN pure Mangini Hate
-
Cable has more wins than Mangini this year, against better opponents, and has won the games he has with JaMarcus Russell, Bruce Gradkowski, and Charlie Frye starting at QB, and the Raiders have generally been more competitive than the Browns. He's a scumbag, but at this point he's a more successful scumbag.
As for Rob Ryan, I disliked the hire at the beginning, and I still think he's the wrong guy for the job. His defenses were average at best in Oakland, and this year it's been mediocre on its best days. I don't care how much he jumps around on the sidelines; he can't scheme for crap, and hopefully he'll be one and done along with Daboll.
As for Mangini, I'll trust Holmgren. If he thinks he can turn it around, I'll go along with it. My hunch is that Holmgren won't--looking at the games the Browns have won (and the way they've won), I never thought I'd say this, but this 4-11 team just isn't as good as their record indicates.
Dennis
Cable has more wins than Mangini this year, against better opponents, and has won the games he has with JaMarcus Russell, Bruce Gradkowski, and Charlie Frye starting at QB, and the Raiders have generally been more competitive than the Browns. He's a scumbag, but at this point he's a more successful scumbag.
As for Rob Ryan, I disliked the hire at the beginning, and I still think he's the wrong guy for the job. His defenses were average at best in Oakland, and this year it's been mediocre on its best days. I don't care how much he jumps around on the sidelines; he can't scheme for crap, and hopefully he'll be one and done along with Daboll.
As for Mangini, I'll trust Holmgren. If he thinks he can turn it around, I'll go along with it. My hunch is that Holmgren won't--looking at the games the Browns have won (and the way they've won), I never thought I'd say this, but this 4-11 team just isn't as good as their record indicates.
Dennis
On Rob Ryan......I don't really care what he did in Oakland. For the first time in many, many years, I see a pass rush from the Browns' defense. I see better tackling, and I see defenders in position to defend the pass better. Overall....I see the best defense that we have seen here for a while....and with not a lot of talent. Hopefully, you are wrong about Holmgren........and no....they are exactly where they should be.......4 - 11, and may end up 5 -12.......which is an improvement. It's too bad a lot of you guys can't or won't recognize the transformation that has taken place with this team under Mangini. I just don't get it.....why some are just obsessed with firing Mangini......with the distinct possibilty that we could get somebody a lot worse than him in here.
-
Cable has more wins than Mangini this year, against better opponents, and has won the games he has with JaMarcus Russell, Bruce Gradkowski, and Charlie Frye starting at QB, and the Raiders have generally been more competitive than the Browns. He's a scumbag, but at this point he's a more successful scumbag.
As for Rob Ryan, I disliked the hire at the beginning, and I still think he's the wrong guy for the job. His defenses were average at best in Oakland, and this year it's been mediocre on its best days. I don't care how much he jumps around on the sidelines; he can't scheme for crap, and hopefully he'll be one and done along with Daboll.
As for Mangini, I'll trust Holmgren. If he thinks he can turn it around, I'll go along with it. My hunch is that Holmgren won't--looking at the games the Browns have won (and the way they've won), I never thought I'd say this, but this 4-11 team just isn't as good as their record indicates.
Dennis
On Rob Ryan......I don't really care what he did in Oakland. For the first time in many, many years, I see a pass rush from the Browns' defense. I see better tackling, and I see defenders in position to defend the pass better. Overall....I see the best defense that we have seen here for a while....and with not a lot of talent. Hopefully, you are wrong about Holmgren........and no....they are exactly where they should be.......4 - 11, and may end up 5 -12.......which is an improvement. It's too bad a lot of you guys can't or won't recognize the transformation that has taken place with this team under Mangini. I just don't get it.....why some are just obsessed with firing Mangini......with the distinct possibilty that we could get somebody a lot worse than him in here.
I just don't get it.....why some are just obsessed with firing Mangini......with the distinct possibilty that we could get somebody a lot worse than him in here.
With you 100% on this, in fact given recent trends it's not only a possibility but a probability that we get a coach much worse. After all, this is the first December since probably Mack and Byner that we have outrushed every team we played, and fairly significantly. Seems like we've been looking for a coach that can win with smashmouth football in December for a long time, at least I sure have.
-
What worries me is that if Holmgren does pull a dick move and fires Mangini, he will get another job instantly. And guess what? We'll lose Ryan also. So, we'll not only lose a really good head coach working in the right direction but we'll lose the best Defensive Coordinator we have ever had.
If Holmgren dumps Mangini, I dump Hulmgren.
What is Ryan's D ranked?
Whatever Holmgren does is fine, we stink.
What is Ryan's D ranked?
Whatever Holmgren does is fine, we stink.
I don't think the rankings and style of play are reflected in the rankings. I think it has more to do with inferior players.
The addition of Roth made a big difference in our results. Put 2-3-4 more players on the D and I bet the ranking improve dramatically.
You don't think so??
JMO
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
Cable has more wins than Mangini this year, against better opponents, and has won the games he has with JaMarcus Russell, Bruce Gradkowski, and Charlie Frye starting at QB, and the Raiders have generally been more competitive than the Browns. He's a scumbag, but at this point he's a more successful scumbag.
As for Rob Ryan, I disliked the hire at the beginning, and I still think he's the wrong guy for the job. His defenses were average at best in Oakland, and this year it's been mediocre on its best days. I don't care how much he jumps around on the sidelines; he can't scheme for crap, and hopefully he'll be one and done along with Daboll.
As for Mangini, I'll trust Holmgren. If he thinks he can turn it around, I'll go along with it. My hunch is that Holmgren won't--looking at the games the Browns have won (and the way they've won), I never thought I'd say this, but this 4-11 team just isn't as good as their record indicates.
Dennis
I never thought I'd say this, but this 4-11 team just isn't as good as their record indicates.
Dennis
Really?
The team has a good chance to improve from its 4-12 record last year and could easily be in position to finish 7-9 but for a strip of Harrison against Cincy returned for a TD and a last-ditch hail Mary attempt and a questionable interference penalty against the Lions. And they did it while trading away key players from last year's team for 2010 picks, and righting a salary cap gone horribly wrong. And with key early injuries to Tucker, Heiden, Hadnot and James Davis . . . all of whom I think they were counting on to contribute to the offense.
Oakland will likely have the same record it had last year. 5 wins.
And did you happen to notice the obviously better coached team on Sunday when our Browns pretty easily handled Cable's Raiders? You'd think that might sway your thinking a bit in the Cable/Mangini debate.
Over the last three games, we are the best running team in the NFL. In two of the three games we've been stout against the run. We've been vulnerable against the pass, but we have a WR playing safety and a safety playing corner.
I'm guessing that the teams fighting for their playoff lives this week . . . Baltimore, New York, Pitt, are glad they aren't facing the Browns.
Right now, I'd say we are one of the more dangerous sub .500 teams in the NFL.
-
What is Ryan's D ranked?
Whatever Holmgren does is fine, we stink.
I don't think the rankings and style of play are reflected in the rankings. I think it has more to do with inferior players.
The addition of Roth made a big difference in our results. Put 2-3-4 more players on the D and I bet the ranking improve dramatically.
You don't think so??
JMO
I don't think the rankings and style of play are reflected in the rankings. I think it has more to do with inferior players.
The addition of Roth made a big difference in our results. Put 2-3-4 more players on the D and I bet the ranking improve dramatically.
You don't think so??
JMO
I definately want to grab all the positives of this season and move forward.
But the bottom line is we are a bad team who capitalized on fellow cellar dwellars and a Pitt team on the decline.
All i'm saying is i won't cry foul if Holmgren says goodbye to ANY of the coaches.
But if he keeps them then i do expect to be better than this years team right out of the gate next year.
-
I never thought I'd say this, but this 4-11 team just isn't as good as their record indicates.
Dennis
Really?
The team has a good chance to improve from its 4-12 record last year and could easily be in position to finish 7-9 but for a strip of Harrison against Cincy returned for a TD and a last-ditch hail Mary attempt and a questionable interference penalty against the Lions. And they did it while trading away key players from last year's team for 2010 picks, and righting a salary cap gone horribly wrong. And with key early injuries to Tucker, Heiden, Hadnot and James Davis . . . all of whom I think they were counting on to contribute to the offense.
Oakland will likely have the same record it had last year. 5 wins.
And did you happen to notice the obviously better coached team on Sunday when our Browns pretty easily handled Cable's Raiders? You'd think that might sway your thinking a bit in the Cable/Mangini debate.
Over the last three games, we are the best running team in the NFL. In two of the three games we've been stout against the run. We've been vulnerable against the pass, but we have a WR playing safety and a safety playing corner.
I'm guessing that the teams fighting for their playoff lives this week . . . Baltimore, New York, Pitt, are glad they aren't facing the Browns.
Right now, I'd say we are one of the more dangerous sub .500 teams in the NFL.
Really?
The team has a good chance to improve from its 4-12 record last year and could easily be in position to finish 7-9 but for a strip of Harrison against Cincy returned for a TD and a last-ditch hail Mary attempt and a questionable interference penalty against the Lions. And they did it while trading away key players from last year's team for 2010 picks, and righting a salary cap gone horribly wrong. And with key early injuries to Tucker, Heiden, Hadnot and James Davis . . . all of whom I think they were counting on to contribute to the offense.
Oakland will likely have the same record it had last year. 5 wins.
And did you happen to notice the obviously better coached team on Sunday when our Browns pretty easily handled Cable's Raiders? You'd think that might sway your thinking a bit in the Cable/Mangini debate.
Over the last three games, we are the best running team in the NFL. In two of the three games we've been stout against the run. We've been vulnerable against the pass, but we have a WR playing safety and a safety playing corner.
I'm guessing that the teams fighting for their playoff lives this week . . . Baltimore, New York, Pitt, are glad they aren't facing the Browns.
Right now, I'd say we are one of the more dangerous sub .500 teams in the NFL.
Yes, it is true that the Browns are in position to improve on last year's 4-12 record. Sure, it's only by one game, but in five years--watch out!
The Browns clearly handled the Raiders on Sunday, and I did think about whether or not that would affect my argument about Cable being better this year than Mangini. On the balance, I still think Cable has donte a better job this year. If you want to count the games the Browns have lost--but were competitive in--then you would have to do the same for the Raiders.
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Dennis
-
Really?
The team has a good chance to improve from its 4-12 record last year and could easily be in position to finish 7-9 but for a strip of Harrison against Cincy returned for a TD and a last-ditch hail Mary attempt and a questionable interference penalty against the Lions. And they did it while trading away key players from last year's team for 2010 picks, and righting a salary cap gone horribly wrong. And with key early injuries to Tucker, Heiden, Hadnot and James Davis . . . all of whom I think they were counting on to contribute to the offense.
Oakland will likely have the same record it had last year. 5 wins.
And did you happen to notice the obviously better coached team on Sunday when our Browns pretty easily handled Cable's Raiders? You'd think that might sway your thinking a bit in the Cable/Mangini debate.
Over the last three games, we are the best running team in the NFL. In two of the three games we've been stout against the run. We've been vulnerable against the pass, but we have a WR playing safety and a safety playing corner.
I'm guessing that the teams fighting for their playoff lives this week . . . Baltimore, New York, Pitt, are glad they aren't facing the Browns.
Right now, I'd say we are one of the more dangerous sub .500 teams in the NFL.
Yes, it is true that the Browns are in position to improve on last year's 4-12 record. Sure, it's only by one game, but in five years--watch out!
The Browns clearly handled the Raiders on Sunday, and I did think about whether or not that would affect my argument about Cable being better this year than Mangini. On the balance, I still think Cable has donte a better job this year. If you want to count the games the Browns have lost--but were competitive in--then you would have to do the same for the Raiders.
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Dennis
Yes, it is true that the Browns are in position to improve on last year's 4-12 record. Sure, it's only by one game, but in five years--watch out!
The Browns clearly handled the Raiders on Sunday, and I did think about whether or not that would affect my argument about Cable being better this year than Mangini. On the balance, I still think Cable has donte a better job this year. If you want to count the games the Browns have lost--but were competitive in--then you would have to do the same for the Raiders.
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Dennis
People who point to the first part of the season don't understand what it means to rebuild a team. Of course you're going to struggle early on. The recent success is a result of a good system being executed properly. And Harrison? I think it is better that he is in now instead of before he was ready. PLayers need to earn their time so I have no problem with keeping him out early on. Plus, he fumbles a little bit more than any HC can be comfortable with.
4-11 is something to hang your hat on. Fans have a problem lumping the last 11 years together. This is year one with Mangini. And if you can win 5 games, one against the Steelers, in a rebuilding building year, you're doing pretty well. And its something to hang your hat on.
-
Yes, it is true that the Browns are in position to improve on last year's 4-12 record. Sure, it's only by one game, but in five years--watch out!
The Browns clearly handled the Raiders on Sunday, and I did think about whether or not that would affect my argument about Cable being better this year than Mangini. On the balance, I still think Cable has donte a better job this year. If you want to count the games the Browns have lost--but were competitive in--then you would have to do the same for the Raiders.
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Dennis
People who point to the first part of the season don't understand what it means to rebuild a team. Of course you're going to struggle early on. The recent success is a result of a good system being executed properly. And Harrison? I think it is better that he is in now instead of before he was ready. PLayers need to earn their time so I have no problem with keeping him out early on. Plus, he fumbles a little bit more than any HC can be comfortable with.
4-11 is something to hang your hat on. Fans have a problem lumping the last 11 years together. This is year one with Mangini. And if you can win 5 games, one against the Steelers, in a rebuilding building year, you're doing pretty well. And its something to hang your hat on.
People who point to the first part of the season don't understand what it means to rebuild a team. Of course you're going to struggle early on. The recent success is a result of a good system being executed properly. And Harrison? I think it is better that he is in now instead of before he was ready. PLayers need to earn their time so I have no problem with keeping him out early on. Plus, he fumbles a little bit more than any HC can be comfortable with.
4-11 is something to hang your hat on. Fans have a problem lumping the last 11 years together. This is year one with Mangini. And if you can win 5 games, one against the Steelers, in a rebuilding building year, you're doing pretty well. And its something to hang your hat on.
Oh please. We only ended up at 4-12 last year because we had Gradkowski and friggin` Ken Dorsey at QB for the last 4 games. Had both Quinn and DA not both been injured, we would have likely won at least one more game and ended at 5-11. Right now we`re 4-11. That`s four wins. That is not an improvement over last year, and even if we win a 5th game it won`t mean anything.
If Jamal hadn`t been injured he would still be in playing right now, and we wouldn`t have won 3 straight. Everyone would then be calling for Mangini`s head. The problem with Clevelanders is they`re so used to utterly degenerate play that a tiny sliver of hope gets them into an ecstasy-induced fervor.
So our team is good enough to beat the bottom feeders. Whoop dee doo. Mangini has consistently demonstrated an inability to handle working with people of authority. He will only be a headache to Holmgren, and I think Holmgren already realizes this.
I predict Mangini being gone after this year.
-
People who point to the first part of the season don't understand what it means to rebuild a team. Of course you're going to struggle early on. The recent success is a result of a good system being executed properly. And Harrison? I think it is better that he is in now instead of before he was ready. PLayers need to earn their time so I have no problem with keeping him out early on. Plus, he fumbles a little bit more than any HC can be comfortable with.
4-11 is something to hang your hat on. Fans have a problem lumping the last 11 years together. This is year one with Mangini. And if you can win 5 games, one against the Steelers, in a rebuilding building year, you're doing pretty well. And its something to hang your hat on.
Oh please. We only ended up at 4-12 last year because we had Gradkowski and friggin` Ken Dorsey at QB for the last 4 games. Had both Quinn and DA not both been injured, we would have likely won at least one more game and ended at 5-11. Right now we`re 4-11. That`s four wins. That is not an improvement over last year, and even if we win a 5th game it won`t mean anything.
If Jamal hadn`t been injured he would still be in playing right now, and we wouldn`t have won 3 straight. Everyone would then be calling for Mangini`s head. The problem with Clevelanders is they`re so used to utterly degenerate play that a tiny sliver of hope gets them into an ecstasy-induced fervor.
So our team is good enough to beat the bottom feeders. Whoop dee doo. Mangini has consistently demonstrated an inability to handle working with people of authority. He will only be a headache to Holmgren, and I think Holmgren already realizes this.
I predict Mangini being gone after this year.
Oh please. We only ended up at 4-12 last year because we had Gradkowski and friggin` Ken Dorsey at QB for the last 4 games. Had both Quinn and DA not both been injured, we would have likely won at least one more game and ended at 5-11. Right now we`re 4-11. That`s four wins. That is not an improvement over last year, and even if we win a 5th game it won`t mean anything.
If Jamal hadn`t been injured he would still be in playing right now, and we wouldn`t have won 3 straight. Everyone would then be calling for Mangini`s head. The problem with Clevelanders is they`re so used to utterly degenerate play that a tiny sliver of hope gets them into an ecstasy-induced fervor.
So our team is good enough to beat the bottom feeders. Whoop dee doo. Mangini has consistently demonstrated an inability to handle working with people of authority. He will only be a headache to Holmgren, and I think Holmgren already realizes this.
I predict Mangini being gone after this year.
So you're saying that last year with a supposedly much better roster we almost won 5 games?
Mangini cut 26 guys from that roster and traded a handful of others. How many of those cut have caught on with other teams? (hint, you can count them on one hand).
We beat bad teams, so what? We're a bad team, and you've got to start somewhere. Letting Mangini go would be a travesty after what he's built from nothing.
-
Yes, it is true that the Browns are in position to improve on last year's 4-12 record. Sure, it's only by one game, but in five years--watch out!
The Browns clearly handled the Raiders on Sunday, and I did think about whether or not that would affect my argument about Cable being better this year than Mangini. On the balance, I still think Cable has donte a better job this year. If you want to count the games the Browns have lost--but were competitive in--then you would have to do the same for the Raiders.
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Dennis
People who point to the first part of the season don't understand what it means to rebuild a team. Of course you're going to struggle early on. The recent success is a result of a good system being executed properly. And Harrison? I think it is better that he is in now instead of before he was ready. PLayers need to earn their time so I have no problem with keeping him out early on. Plus, he fumbles a little bit more than any HC can be comfortable with.
4-11 is something to hang your hat on. Fans have a problem lumping the last 11 years together. This is year one with Mangini. And if you can win 5 games, one against the Steelers, in a rebuilding building year, you're doing pretty well. And its something to hang your hat on.
People who point to the first part of the season don't understand what it means to rebuild a team. Of course you're going to struggle early on. The recent success is a result of a good system being executed properly. And Harrison? I think it is better that he is in now instead of before he was ready. PLayers need to earn their time so I have no problem with keeping him out early on. Plus, he fumbles a little bit more than any HC can be comfortable with.
I understand what it means to be a rebuilding team; nobody but the most delusional people would have thought this was a playoff team this year. However, even rebuilding teams can be competitive. How many times were the Browns embarassed duing Belichick's first year? Once, against the Redskins. Even though they lost ten games, they only lost three by more than one score. In short, they were in every game except one. He had more talent than Mangini (although he clearly didn't think so), but he also coached the team to keep games close and give the team a shot at the end.
Can we say that about Mangini? The numbers: in 11 losses, the Browns have been outscored 306-139 (a 167 point spread, or a little over 15 points a game). Bear in mind that Mangini's specialty is defense, as is Rob "Clearly the Next Great Coach in Waiting" Ryan's. They have been within one score in three of eleven losses. By contrast, in their four wins, the score has been 83-52 (a 31 point spread, or 7.75 points a game). All but one have been by one score or less. Surprisingly, three of the team's four wins come against three of the four worst opponents they've faced.
The Browns have played better of late, but it doesn't make sense to ignore blowout losses to good teams as the normal growing pains of a rebuilding franchise while pointing to squeakers against subpar opponents as proof that the team is on the right track.
As for Harrison, I'm still not giving Mangini as pass on this one. He's in his 4th season...don't you think it's a possibility (however slight) that he got more playing time because Jamal Lewis was put on IR, rather than his miraculously finding Jesus in the last three weeks and deserving to get on the field?
Dennis
-
Really?
The team has a good chance to improve from its 4-12 record last year and could easily be in position to finish 7-9 but for a strip of Harrison against Cincy returned for a TD and a last-ditch hail Mary attempt and a questionable interference penalty against the Lions. And they did it while trading away key players from last year's team for 2010 picks, and righting a salary cap gone horribly wrong. And with key early injuries to Tucker, Heiden, Hadnot and James Davis . . . all of whom I think they were counting on to contribute to the offense.
Oakland will likely have the same record it had last year. 5 wins.
And did you happen to notice the obviously better coached team on Sunday when our Browns pretty easily handled Cable's Raiders? You'd think that might sway your thinking a bit in the Cable/Mangini debate.
Over the last three games, we are the best running team in the NFL. In two of the three games we've been stout against the run. We've been vulnerable against the pass, but we have a WR playing safety and a safety playing corner.
I'm guessing that the teams fighting for their playoff lives this week . . . Baltimore, New York, Pitt, are glad they aren't facing the Browns.
Right now, I'd say we are one of the more dangerous sub .500 teams in the NFL.
Yes, it is true that the Browns are in position to improve on last year's 4-12 record. Sure, it's only by one game, but in five years--watch out!
The Browns clearly handled the Raiders on Sunday, and I did think about whether or not that would affect my argument about Cable being better this year than Mangini. On the balance, I still think Cable has donte a better job this year. If you want to count the games the Browns have lost--but were competitive in--then you would have to do the same for the Raiders.
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Dennis
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
I answered this dismissive line of logic in another thread. It hasn't been all Harrison. The offensive line has been amazing in this run . . . and most will tell you that an offensive line needs to play together for a while to jell as a unit. We had 170 yards plus against the #1 rush defense in the NFL (Pittsburgh) and Harrison hardly even contributed to that. In the historic game against the Chiefs, our offensive line had one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. There were the proverbial holes that you could have driven a truck through. On one play I saw Mack knock down the first guy in his path and then drive a LBer 15 yards off the ball and into the end zone.
Just for the sake of the "it's all Harrison" argument, lets compare the Pitt and Oakland game, remembering that Pitt is the #1 rushing defense in the NFL and Oakland like 30th. Harrison had a 3.8 ypc average on 39 carries against Oakland, while Jennings -- a guy that a CFL team cut -- had 3.7 yards a carry on 20 carries against Pitt. Harrison had 7 carries and averaged well under 2 yards a carry in that game. The week before Harrison had 10 carries against SD and averaged 3.5 yards. Jennings averaged 5.8 yards a carry in that game. Cribbs has averaged about 8 yards a carry in this same span. Yet, Mangini rewarded Harrison by giving him feature back carries against KC for demonstrating he could pick up a blitz.
Also don't forget that starting week 3 of the season, Mangini tried to give Harrison more work. He gave him 17 carries against Baltimore where Harrison averaged 3.3 yards per carry. The next week he gave Harrison 29 carries against Cincy where Harrison rushed for 4.2 yards a rush, but got stripped for a 75 yard Cincy' TD. He then was unable to practice most of the next week and averaged only 2.6 yards on his 8 carries against Buffalo while Lewis gained over 100 yards. Harrison then got some work as a third down back and one one memorable play made no attempt to pick up a blitz and nearly got Quinn killed.
The line play has gotten better. Mack gets better each game. It's not just Harrison.
And talk to me when Harrison has kept this up from the start of the season through its mid point. He's been terrific, but you have a guy who's got fresh legs going up against defenses in week 15 and 16 of an NFL season. A feature back has to be able to play nicked up and be a guy you can count on to carry a load through a 16 game schedule and hopefully into the playoffs. I think it was 2004 when Lee Suggs had a similar finish to a season.
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Okay, but the main point of your post was that they are worse than their 4-11 record. Talent-wise, you may be right. But that's largely a vestige of the previous regime's failure. What I contest in your statement is that they are actually playing better than any other 4-11 or 5-10 team. Probably better than a couple who are 7-8.
-
Oh please. We only ended up at 4-12 last year because we had Gradkowski and friggin` Ken Dorsey at QB for the last 4 games. Had both Quinn and DA not both been injured, we would have likely won at least one more game and ended at 5-11. Right now we`re 4-11. That`s four wins. That is not an improvement over last year, and even if we win a 5th game it won`t mean anything.
If Jamal hadn`t been injured he would still be in playing right now, and we wouldn`t have won 3 straight. Everyone would then be calling for Mangini`s head. The problem with Clevelanders is they`re so used to utterly degenerate play that a tiny sliver of hope gets them into an ecstasy-induced fervor.
So our team is good enough to beat the bottom feeders. Whoop dee doo. Mangini has consistently demonstrated an inability to handle working with people of authority. He will only be a headache to Holmgren, and I think Holmgren already realizes this.
I predict Mangini being gone after this year.
So you're saying that last year with a supposedly much better roster we almost won 5 games?
Mangini cut 26 guys from that roster and traded a handful of others. How many of those cut have caught on with other teams? (hint, you can count them on one hand).
We beat bad teams, so what? We're a bad team, and you've got to start somewhere. Letting Mangini go would be a travesty after what he's built from nothing.
So you're saying that last year with a supposedly much better roster we almost won 5 games?
Mangini cut 26 guys from that roster and traded a handful of others. How many of those cut have caught on with other teams? (hint, you can count them on one hand).
We beat bad teams, so what? We're a bad team, and you've got to start somewhere. Letting Mangini go would be a travesty after what he's built from nothing.
Your citing of the 24/26 stats only serves to indicate that we were in fact a terribly untalented team last year. Yet even with that terrible roster had DA or BQ still been at QB for the last 4 games we would have ended up with 5 wins. This year other than Pittsburgh the Browns have been beating on bottom-feeders. We are a 4-11 team, a record that demonstrates we still suck. Sure we`re not the worst team in the NFL, but we`re no better than we were last year. Without Harrison and Cribbs, we really would be at the bottom of the barrel. We`ve already reached our ceiling under Mangini. Just like when he was with the NYJ, the best we`ll become under him is a mediocre, 8-8 team that only makes the playoffs if it gets lucky.
Other negative points of Mangini is that he is a terribe play-caller and game-manager, utterly fails at making in-game adjustments, and is completely unable to work with other people. Holmgren`s vision of a consensus-based team essentially precludes Mangini from being in the picture.
-
Well I understand both arguments as to whether or not Mangini should stay. I personally believe he deserves another year because of the progress we have made. Yes we are still only 4-11 which isn't better than last years record, and wins against Oakland, Buffalo, and Kansas City are hardly anything to brag about.. But look at our divisional games..
We lost to Baltimore the first time we played them 34-3. The next time we played them we were still clearly outplayed, yet we only lost 16-0. We lost at Pittsburgh 27-14 the first time we played them, and beat them 13-6 in the second meeting. We lost to Cincinnati the first time 23-20 in OT, and 16-7 the second time around.. maybe this isnt seen as an improvement but the game was at Cincinnati and we kept it close.. So looking at the second half of the season as a whole, I would say that there has been a ton of improvement. Regardless as to who played at QB, we have improved over the course of this season which should award Mangini another year..
-
So you're saying that last year with a supposedly much better roster we almost won 5 games?
Mangini cut 26 guys from that roster and traded a handful of others. How many of those cut have caught on with other teams? (hint, you can count them on one hand).
We beat bad teams, so what? We're a bad team, and you've got to start somewhere. Letting Mangini go would be a travesty after what he's built from nothing.
Your citing of the 24/26 stats only serves to indicate that we were in fact a terribly untalented team last year. Yet even with that terrible roster had DA or BQ still been at QB for the last 4 games we would have ended up with 5 wins. This year other than Pittsburgh the Browns have been beating on bottom-feeders. We are a 4-11 team, a record that demonstrates we still suck. Sure we`re not the worst team in the NFL, but we`re no better than we were last year. Without Harrison and Cribbs, we really would be at the bottom of the barrel. We`ve already reached our ceiling under Mangini. Just like when he was with the NYJ, the best we`ll become under him is a mediocre, 8-8 team that only makes the playoffs if it gets lucky.
Other negative points of Mangini is that he is a terribe play-caller and game-manager, utterly fails at making in-game adjustments, and is completely unable to work with other people. Holmgren`s vision of a consensus-based team essentially precludes Mangini from being in the picture.
Your citing of the 24/26 stats only serves to indicate that we were in fact a terribly untalented team last year. Yet even with that terrible roster had DA or BQ still been at QB for the last 4 games we would have ended up with 5 wins. This year other than Pittsburgh the Browns have been beating on bottom-feeders. We are a 4-11 team, a record that demonstrates we still suck. Sure we`re not the worst team in the NFL, but we`re no better than we were last year. Without Harrison and Cribbs, we really would be at the bottom of the barrel. We`ve already reached our ceiling under Mangini. Just like when he was with the NYJ, the best we`ll become under him is a mediocre, 8-8 team that only makes the playoffs if it gets lucky.
Other negative points of Mangini is that he is a terribe play-caller and game-manager, utterly fails at making in-game adjustments, and is completely unable to work with other people. Holmgren`s vision of a consensus-based team essentially precludes Mangini from being in the picture.
Why do you count Pittsburgh as a good team, but the other teams as bottom feeders? If I recall correctly, didn't both Oakland and Kansas City beat Pittsburgh? If anything, we beat all bottom-feeders. But we're a hell of a lot better than we were last year, and if you don't see that, you're a fool.
Since you're so adept at predicting the future, tell me - what's our record going to be next year if we keep Mangini? Also, what will be the Powerball numbers for next Saturday?
-
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
I answered this dismissive line of logic in another thread. It hasn't been all Harrison. The offensive line has been amazing in this run . . . and most will tell you that an offensive line needs to play together for a while to jell as a unit. We had 170 yards plus against the #1 rush defense in the NFL (Pittsburgh) and Harrison hardly even contributed to that. In the historic game against the Chiefs, our offensive line had one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. There were the proverbial holes that you could have driven a truck through. On one play I saw Mack knock down the first guy in his path and then drive a LBer 15 yards off the ball and into the end zone.
Just for the sake of the "it's all Harrison" argument, lets compare the Pitt and Oakland game, remembering that Pitt is the #1 rushing defense in the NFL and Oakland like 30th. Harrison had a 3.8 ypc average on 39 carries against Oakland, while Jennings -- a guy that a CFL team cut -- had 3.7 yards a carry on 20 carries against Pitt. Harrison had 7 carries and averaged well under 2 yards a carry in that game. The week before Harrison had 10 carries against SD and averaged 3.5 yards. Jennings averaged 5.8 yards a carry in that game. Cribbs has averaged about 8 yards a carry in this same span. Yet, Mangini rewarded Harrison by giving him feature back carries against KC for demonstrating he could pick up a blitz.
Also don't forget that starting week 3 of the season, Mangini tried to give Harrison more work. He gave him 17 carries against Baltimore where Harrison averaged 3.3 yards per carry. The next week he gave Harrison 29 carries against Cincy where Harrison rushed for 4.2 yards a rush, but got stripped for a 75 yard Cincy' TD. He then was unable to practice most of the next week and averaged only 2.6 yards on his 8 carries against Buffalo while Lewis gained over 100 yards. Harrison then got some work as a third down back and one one memorable play made no attempt to pick up a blitz and nearly got Quinn killed.
The line play has gotten better. Mack gets better each game. It's not just Harrison.
And talk to me when Harrison has kept this up from the start of the season through its mid point. He's been terrific, but you have a guy who's got fresh legs going up against defenses in week 15 and 16 of an NFL season. A feature back has to be able to play nicked up and be a guy you can count on to carry a load through a 16 game schedule and hopefully into the playoffs. I think it was 2004 when Lee Suggs had a similar finish to a season.
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Okay, but the main point of your post was that they are worse than their 4-11 record. Talent-wise, you may be right. But that's largely a vestige of the previous regime's failure. What I contest in your statement is that they are actually playing better than any other 4-11 or 5-10 team. Probably better than a couple who are 7-8.
I answered this dismissive line of logic in another thread. It hasn't been all Harrison. The offensive line has been amazing in this run . . . and most will tell you that an offensive line needs to play together for a while to jell as a unit.
I agree with you on the most part, but our Offensive Lines have been creating holes (at-times) since we've returned to the league. It's just that we haven't had a back hit them quick/hard enough before they closed.
Same as everyone calling for the O-lines head in the first 10 quarters of play this season. in steps another QB and all of a sudden the O-line isn't giving up sacks no more.
Harrison is hitting the holes with precision timing and he's into the secondary. Jamal danced at the mouth of the hole.
I've had end zone seats since 1999, and I can tell you that each year we opened holes, but besides Jamal's running with attitude and hitting them hard in 2007, and this year, we haven't had a back come close to exploiting the holes (no matter how big or small).
-
I answered this dismissive line of logic in another thread. It hasn't been all Harrison. The offensive line has been amazing in this run . . . and most will tell you that an offensive line needs to play together for a while to jell as a unit.
I agree with you on the most part, but our Offensive Lines have been creating holes (at-times) since we've returned to the league. It's just that we haven't had a back hit them quick/hard enough before they closed.
Same as everyone calling for the O-lines head in the first 10 quarters of play this season. in steps another QB and all of a sudden the O-line isn't giving up sacks no more.
Harrison is hitting the holes with precision timing and he's into the secondary. Jamal danced at the mouth of the hole.
I've had end zone seats since 1999, and I can tell you that each year we opened holes, but besides Jamal's running with attitude and hitting them hard in 2007, and this year, we haven't had a back come close to exploiting the holes (no matter how big or small).
I agree with you on the most part, but our Offensive Lines have been creating holes (at-times) since we've returned to the league. It's just that we haven't had a back hit them quick/hard enough before they closed.
Same as everyone calling for the O-lines head in the first 10 quarters of play this season. in steps another QB and all of a sudden the O-line isn't giving up sacks no more.
Harrison is hitting the holes with precision timing and he's into the secondary. Jamal danced at the mouth of the hole.
I've had end zone seats since 1999, and I can tell you that each year we opened holes, but besides Jamal's running with attitude and hitting them hard in 2007, and this year, we haven't had a back come close to exploiting the holes (no matter how big or small).
The O-line's been looking good to me, and what's even better is that Mangini has the team playing hard at the end of a season when there's nothing but pride left to play for. I don't know if Mangini is the guy or not, but I think he needs to stay in place for at least another year. One season doesn't prove anything, and it looks like my Brownies are improving.
-
So you're saying that last year with a supposedly much better roster we almost won 5 games?
Mangini cut 26 guys from that roster and traded a handful of others. How many of those cut have caught on with other teams? (hint, you can count them on one hand).
We beat bad teams, so what? We're a bad team, and you've got to start somewhere. Letting Mangini go would be a travesty after what he's built from nothing.
Your citing of the 24/26 stats only serves to indicate that we were in fact a terribly untalented team last year. Yet even with that terrible roster had DA or BQ still been at QB for the last 4 games we would have ended up with 5 wins. This year other than Pittsburgh the Browns have been beating on bottom-feeders. We are a 4-11 team, a record that demonstrates we still suck. Sure we`re not the worst team in the NFL, but we`re no better than we were last year. Without Harrison and Cribbs, we really would be at the bottom of the barrel. We`ve already reached our ceiling under Mangini. Just like when he was with the NYJ, the best we`ll become under him is a mediocre, 8-8 team that only makes the playoffs if it gets lucky.
Other negative points of Mangini is that he is a terribe play-caller and game-manager, utterly fails at making in-game adjustments, and is completely unable to work with other people. Holmgren`s vision of a consensus-based team essentially precludes Mangini from being in the picture.
Your citing of the 24/26 stats only serves to indicate that we were in fact a terribly untalented team last year. Yet even with that terrible roster had DA or BQ still been at QB for the last 4 games we would have ended up with 5 wins. This year other than Pittsburgh the Browns have been beating on bottom-feeders. We are a 4-11 team, a record that demonstrates we still suck. Sure we`re not the worst team in the NFL, but we`re no better than we were last year. Without Harrison and Cribbs, we really would be at the bottom of the barrel. We`ve already reached our ceiling under Mangini. Just like when he was with the NYJ, the best we`ll become under him is a mediocre, 8-8 team that only makes the playoffs if it gets lucky.
Other negative points of Mangini is that he is a terribe play-caller and game-manager, utterly fails at making in-game adjustments, and is completely unable to work with other people. Holmgren`s vision of a consensus-based team essentially precludes Mangini from being in the picture.
Who cares where we'd be without Harrison or Cribbs. Guess what? They're Browns, so we get to include their contributions to our wins! Ask the Colts where they'd be without Manning and Wayne and you wouldn't see a 14-1 team either.
-
So you're saying that last year with a supposedly much better roster we almost won 5 games?
Mangini cut 26 guys from that roster and traded a handful of others. How many of those cut have caught on with other teams? (hint, you can count them on one hand).
We beat bad teams, so what? We're a bad team, and you've got to start somewhere. Letting Mangini go would be a travesty after what he's built from nothing.
Your citing of the 24/26 stats only serves to indicate that we were in fact a terribly untalented team last year. Yet even with that terrible roster had DA or BQ still been at QB for the last 4 games we would have ended up with 5 wins. This year other than Pittsburgh the Browns have been beating on bottom-feeders. We are a 4-11 team, a record that demonstrates we still suck. Sure we`re not the worst team in the NFL, but we`re no better than we were last year. Without Harrison and Cribbs, we really would be at the bottom of the barrel. We`ve already reached our ceiling under Mangini. Just like when he was with the NYJ, the best we`ll become under him is a mediocre, 8-8 team that only makes the playoffs if it gets lucky.
Other negative points of Mangini is that he is a terribe play-caller and game-manager, utterly fails at making in-game adjustments, and is completely unable to work with other people. Holmgren`s vision of a consensus-based team essentially precludes Mangini from being in the picture.
Your citing of the 24/26 stats only serves to indicate that we were in fact a terribly untalented team last year. Yet even with that terrible roster had DA or BQ still been at QB for the last 4 games we would have ended up with 5 wins. This year other than Pittsburgh the Browns have been beating on bottom-feeders. We are a 4-11 team, a record that demonstrates we still suck. Sure we`re not the worst team in the NFL, but we`re no better than we were last year. Without Harrison and Cribbs, we really would be at the bottom of the barrel. We`ve already reached our ceiling under Mangini. Just like when he was with the NYJ, the best we`ll become under him is a mediocre, 8-8 team that only makes the playoffs if it gets lucky.
Other negative points of Mangini is that he is a terribe play-caller and game-manager, utterly fails at making in-game adjustments, and is completely unable to work with other people. Holmgren`s vision of a consensus-based team essentially precludes Mangini from being in the picture.
I've asked before but now I'm serious. Can we have a BS button put next to the "thank you" button?
-
This will be the last time I answer the question as to why Harrison wasn't starting until recently.
You do not put a guy on the field who is going to make mistakes! It is better 100 out of 100 times to lose to a better team than to beat yourself with mistakes. Especially while installing a new system and rebuilding from the ground up. Harrison is good yes. But the fact that he wasn't playing, same as Robo, says more about the player than it does about Mangini. Not to mention Lewis is a leader in this team and you don't set examples by sitting your leaders for players who cannot block, catch, and fumble. The only time you make that move is when one guy is holding back an otherwise power-house team. When creating an identity and purging a bad envorinment, you don't make that move. These are the little things that effect culture, attitude,and identity of a team.
-
As to the running game. The Browns have absolutely done a great job running the football in the last couple of games. What about the early part of the season--does Mangini bear any responsibility for that? Since Harrison has clearly shown that he's the #1 back on the team, why did it take the Mangenius so long to recognize his talent? Would the Browns have been so good on the ground if Jamal Lewis hadn't gotten injured, thus making the decision for him?
I answered this dismissive line of logic in another thread. It hasn't been all Harrison. The offensive line has been amazing in this run . . . and most will tell you that an offensive line needs to play together for a while to jell as a unit. We had 170 yards plus against the #1 rush defense in the NFL (Pittsburgh) and Harrison hardly even contributed to that. In the historic game against the Chiefs, our offensive line had one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. There were the proverbial holes that you could have driven a truck through. On one play I saw Mack knock down the first guy in his path and then drive a LBer 15 yards off the ball and into the end zone.
Just for the sake of the "it's all Harrison" argument, lets compare the Pitt and Oakland game, remembering that Pitt is the #1 rushing defense in the NFL and Oakland like 30th. Harrison had a 3.8 ypc average on 39 carries against Oakland, while Jennings -- a guy that a CFL team cut -- had 3.7 yards a carry on 20 carries against Pitt. Harrison had 7 carries and averaged well under 2 yards a carry in that game. The week before Harrison had 10 carries against SD and averaged 3.5 yards. Jennings averaged 5.8 yards a carry in that game. Cribbs has averaged about 8 yards a carry in this same span. Yet, Mangini rewarded Harrison by giving him feature back carries against KC for demonstrating he could pick up a blitz.
Also don't forget that starting week 3 of the season, Mangini tried to give Harrison more work. He gave him 17 carries against Baltimore where Harrison averaged 3.3 yards per carry. The next week he gave Harrison 29 carries against Cincy where Harrison rushed for 4.2 yards a rush, but got stripped for a 75 yard Cincy' TD. He then was unable to practice most of the next week and averaged only 2.6 yards on his 8 carries against Buffalo while Lewis gained over 100 yards. Harrison then got some work as a third down back and one one memorable play made no attempt to pick up a blitz and nearly got Quinn killed.
The line play has gotten better. Mack gets better each game. It's not just Harrison.
And talk to me when Harrison has kept this up from the start of the season through its mid point. He's been terrific, but you have a guy who's got fresh legs going up against defenses in week 15 and 16 of an NFL season. A feature back has to be able to play nicked up and be a guy you can count on to carry a load through a 16 game schedule and hopefully into the playoffs. I think it was 2004 when Lee Suggs had a similar finish to a season.
As for the bubble teams not wanting to play the Browns, I'm for being a fan, but while I'm sure they would rather play the Chiefs or Lions, being the most dangerous 4-11 team in the NFL is hardly something to hang your hat on.
Okay, but the main point of your post was that they are worse than their 4-11 record. Talent-wise, you may be right. But that's largely a vestige of the previous regime's failure. What I contest in your statement is that they are actually playing better than any other 4-11 or 5-10 team. Probably better than a couple who are 7-8.
I answered this dismissive line of logic in another thread. It hasn't been all Harrison. The offensive line has been amazing in this run . . . and most will tell you that an offensive line needs to play together for a while to jell as a unit. We had 170 yards plus against the #1 rush defense in the NFL (Pittsburgh) and Harrison hardly even contributed to that. In the historic game against the Chiefs, our offensive line had one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. There were the proverbial holes that you could have driven a truck through. On one play I saw Mack knock down the first guy in his path and then drive a LBer 15 yards off the ball and into the end zone.
The offensive line didn't need to jell, they needed to be replaced. And they were, it's a different offensive line now. Without taking anything away from Jerome, he probably wouldn't have had as much success as of late if we hadn't changed our offensive line before the Kansas City game. If you'll notice, instead of the usual Hank Fraley and John St. Clair on the right side, for these past two games we've been starting Rex Hadnot and Floyd Womack. I don't believe they are the prime reason our rushing attack has been so good as of late, I think many things factor into it- i.e. the quality of teams we're playing, the weather, the "surprise" factor, Harrison playing for a starting position next year.
I like Hank Fraley, he's a great utility lineman. He can fill in anywhere he is needed, and that's an admirable quality. I'd rather have him in that utility role, but I also wouldn't absolutely hate if he was a starter next year. St. Clair, on the other hand, needs to go. He's absolutely abysmal, I honestly know I can do better than him, and I'm only 20. The right side of our offensive line has been a problem all year, mainly because of St. Clair. We had to bring in Greg Estandia, a 6'8" blocking TE, as well as run a number of Max Pro formations just to keep our QB alive. These last two games, however, QB pressure hasn't necessarily been a problem, and the running lanes have been WIDE open.
I think adding a quality RT in the draft would give us arguably one of the best offensive lines in the NFL. Joe Thomas is fantastic, for lack of a better word. Eric Steinbach is a little past his prime, but still serviceable. Alex Mack is going to be one of the best centers to play the game, of that I am certain. Either Womack, Hadnot or Fraley can be a passable guard. And I would love to see Russell Okung anchor the right side of the line for years to come.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login