Coach Chud Fired
-
How was Chud responsible for that O line?
-
Im sorry I think a lot of you who are happy about this firing really dont know what your talking about. I pray the Redskins hire Chud as the head coach of the Skins immediately. I think hes the next great coach out there. If Brian Hoyer doesnt get injured the Browns would have won the division. I cant believe they only gave Chud 1 year. Its just a shame.
For goodness sake he made Jason Campbell look good at times.
Im sorry I think a lot of you who are happy about this firing really dont know what your talking about. I pray the Redskins hire Chud as the head coach of the Skins immediately. I think hes the next great coach out there. If Brian Hoyer doesnt get injured the Browns would have won the division. I cant believe they only gave Chud 1 year. Its just a shame.
For goodness sake he made Jason Campbell look good at times.
Winning the division with Hoyer is too big of a reach. I strongly doubt it would have even came close.
-
Im sorry I think a lot of you who are happy about this firing really dont know what your talking about. I pray the Redskins hire Chud as the head coach of the Skins immediately. I think hes the next great coach out there. If Brian Hoyer doesnt get injured the Browns would have won the division. I cant believe they only gave Chud 1 year. Its just a shame.
For goodness sake he made Jason Campbell look good at times.
Winning the division with Hoyer is too big of a reach. I strongly doubt it would have even came close.
Winning the division with Hoyer is too big of a reach. I strongly doubt it would have even came close.
I think the defense would have kept playing if Hoyer had stayed in there. I honestly think the defense started to coast a little after that. They kind of played for a couple more weeks but then you could see they were just getting tired of being on the field the whole time. I think Hoyer keeps the defense fresh enough for the whole season that we win the division. I say that with relative certainty only because of the downturn in the North this year. In any other year I'd say Hoyer would have at least given us a sniff. This was the year to step on the North's throat....we fucked it up.
-
I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer. People keep defending Chud by claiming that he was done in by the Hoyer injury, and things may very well have gone better had Hoyer not been injured, but it's not like Chud came into the season with this great idea to start Hoyer and his whole plan was wrecked when Hoyer got hurt. He actually made the poor decision to start Weeden first, then ended up going with Hoyer when his first choice Weeden needed to be replaced.
-
Winning the division with Hoyer is too big of a reach. I strongly doubt it would have even came close.
I think the defense would have kept playing if Hoyer had stayed in there. I honestly think the defense started to coast a little after that. They kind of played for a couple more weeks but then you could see they were just getting tired of being on the field the whole time. I think Hoyer keeps the defense fresh enough for the whole season that we win the division. I say that with relative certainty only because of the downturn in the North this year. In any other year I'd say Hoyer would have at least given us a sniff. This was the year to step on the North's throat....we fucked it up.
I think the defense would have kept playing if Hoyer had stayed in there. I honestly think the defense started to coast a little after that. They kind of played for a couple more weeks but then you could see they were just getting tired of being on the field the whole time. I think Hoyer keeps the defense fresh enough for the whole season that we win the division. I say that with relative certainty only because of the downturn in the North this year. In any other year I'd say Hoyer would have at least given us a sniff. This was the year to step on the North's throat....we fucked it up.
I agree with your last part. We aren't going to get too many opportunities such as this one to catch the Steelers and Ravens in an off year.
-
I think the defense would have kept playing if Hoyer had stayed in there. I honestly think the defense started to coast a little after that. They kind of played for a couple more weeks but then you could see they were just getting tired of being on the field the whole time. I think Hoyer keeps the defense fresh enough for the whole season that we win the division. I say that with relative certainty only because of the downturn in the North this year. In any other year I'd say Hoyer would have at least given us a sniff. This was the year to step on the North's throat....we fucked it up.
I agree with your last part. We aren't going to get too many opportunities such as this one to catch the Steelers and Ravens in an off year.
I agree with your last part. We aren't going to get too many opportunities such as this one to catch the Steelers and Ravens in an off year.
We shouldn't have to rely on the AFC North having a down year to compete in it.
-
I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer. People keep defending Chud by claiming that he was done in by the Hoyer injury, and things may very well have gone better had Hoyer not been injured, but it's not like Chud came into the season with this great idea to start Hoyer and his whole plan was wrecked when Hoyer got hurt. He actually made the poor decision to start Weeden first, then ended up going with Hoyer when his first choice Weeden needed to be replaced.
I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer. People keep defending Chud by claiming that he was done in by the Hoyer injury, and things may very well have gone better had Hoyer not been injured, but it's not like Chud came into the season with this great idea to start Hoyer and his whole plan was wrecked when Hoyer got hurt. He actually made the poor decision to start Weeden first, then ended up going with Hoyer when his first choice Weeden needed to be replaced.
I only fault Chud for putting Weeden back in there after the Hoyer injury and not Campbell. Starting the season with Weeden was a no brainer, nobody knew that the offense would respond like it did with Hoyer back there. It was just one of those things, right time right place. Hoyer had been a career backup and was viewed as such...his only playing time was going to come as a result of an injury. But they knew he had "something" didn't they? Otherwise they would have started Campbell over him. Why they put Weeden back in there I have zero clue, that was my one fault on them the whole season. To can the guy before he had an opportunity to draft and groom his own qb? bullshit
-
I agree with your last part. We aren't going to get too many opportunities such as this one to catch the Steelers and Ravens in an off year.
We shouldn't have to rely on the AFC North having a down year to compete in it.
We shouldn't have to rely on the AFC North having a down year to compete in it.
Technically you are correct. But this is Cleveland..it would have been nice to step on their throats. We could have banised them to the basement for years to come. We can and should still be competitive though.
-
I agree with your last part. We aren't going to get too many opportunities such as this one to catch the Steelers and Ravens in an off year.
We shouldn't have to rely on the AFC North having a down year to compete in it.
We shouldn't have to rely on the AFC North having a down year to compete in it.
I agree. However, we know how tough this division is, and we know how consistent Pittsburgh and Baltimore have been. Now Cincinnati is finally getting their act together! Quite honestly, I'm sick of having to resort to rooting for anyone playing against one of our AFC North rivals, because my team isn't in it, and because I hate the other shit head teams that much! It would be nice to be able have some confidence in my team and not worry about what the other teams in our division are doing, because we'll kick their ass anyway! It has last been since the mid to late 80s since I've felt like that! Now, it's more like "God I just hope we make it a game, and don't get killed!"
-
Chud may have started with Weeden but it was also his idea to put Hoyer in as early as he did and his idea to start him over campbell. I mean, honestly, no one thought Hoyer was going to be a starter but maybe Chud believed in him. And honestly, Hoyer looked elite. I dont care what anyone says I watched those games and Hoyer should be your qb going forward. Id trade you RG3 for Hoyer right now.
-
I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer. People keep defending Chud by claiming that he was done in by the Hoyer injury, and things may very well have gone better had Hoyer not been injured, but it's not like Chud came into the season with this great idea to start Hoyer and his whole plan was wrecked when Hoyer got hurt. He actually made the poor decision to start Weeden first, then ended up going with Hoyer when his first choice Weeden needed to be replaced.
I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer. People keep defending Chud by claiming that he was done in by the Hoyer injury, and things may very well have gone better had Hoyer not been injured, but it's not like Chud came into the season with this great idea to start Hoyer and his whole plan was wrecked when Hoyer got hurt. He actually made the poor decision to start Weeden first, then ended up going with Hoyer when his first choice Weeden needed to be replaced.
I think if we were privy to the inside information the FO had a strong hand in starting Weeden to see what they did or didn't have. No matter how they spin it they pretty much geared the majority of the personnel plan to 2014. IF they are right in that Chud is completely incapable to take the team forward after the 2014 infusion of talent Banner should have been fired as well. I would assume in Banners role that during the first year one of, if not the largest single responsibility is hiring the right coach. If he stands by what he is saying he should resign.
By the end of the year we were expecting a freshman coach to "show progress" with a team that featured practice team running backs, discarded veteran QB and several wide receivers who cant catch if their life depended on it. We needed to stay the course and stick with a system here for a few years for once.
-
ClevFan,
That's what it all comes down to: Does a new coach get to waste a year or years trying to get the components together to improve a team, or is he expected to begin improving the team right away. Now, you and I agreed on Mangini in the other thread. I think he should have gotten more time. However, I thought at the time (I don't remember the details now) that Mangini was headed in a positive direction, and SOMETHING made me think that. Nothing made me feel like Chud was moving things in a positive direction this year. To me, the best that he offered was a claim that he might be able to improve things after a year or more, but that he had no improvements to offer this year.
I'm not in love with the idea of firing a coach after just one year. However, I do think that a new coach is immediately responsible for showing SOME signs of at least the POTENTIAL for improvement. There has got to be some middle ground between "immediately turned the team around" and "took the year off to wait for the draft". I felt like, at best, even if he was going to eventually build a great team, Chud took the year off and waited for the draft.
Maybe there's no explaining what the front office did this year. If there is an explanation though, I think it was that they were prepared for the team to not be good and for it to take some time for the team to become competitive, but that they wanted to at least see SOME sign of potential improvement, and all they got was, "Well, maybe when and if I get a great QB we'll start to get better."
Oh, and Skinsfan,... Hoyer started Week 3 (yes, ahead of Campbell) after Weeden got hurt in Week 2. I don't think we can definitively say when Chud would have replaced Weeden if he hadn't hurt his thumb in Week 2. What we can say is that all three played in the pre-season, and Weeden got the Week 1 and 2 starts.
-
Then Chudzinski flat out lied about it. I heard him say out of his own mouth that Richardson was traded because he didn't fit his (CHUDZINSKI'S [he said "my"]) system.
Then Chudzinski flat out lied about it. I heard him say out of his own mouth that Richardson was traded because he didn't fit his (CHUDZINSKI'S [he said "my"]) system.
I can't recall Chud ever saying that. Nor can I find any textual evidence of it either. As a matter of fact, the only evidence I can find seems to point in the direct opposite of what you claim.
From the press conference following Richardson's trade:
On whether Trent Richardson fit into the Rob Chudzinski/Norv Turner offense, and whether the trade reflected that notion: (Rob Chudzinski) No, not at all. It really had nothing to do with Trent from that standpoint.
On clarifying the earlier question about whether the trade means that Richardson doesnt fit the offense: (Rob Chudzinski) Well, the question was whether he fit the offense. It really has nothing to do with Trent from that standpoint. The opportunity as an organization was there for us to have a chance to get better, ultimately, and I felt like it was the right decision overall.
On whether the trade potentially comes too early in the season: (Joe Banner)As Coach just said, this was more about the moment that presented itself based on the situation the Colts found themselves in. It wasnt something where we could say, Can you wait three weeks and let us think about this or learn more? We had to decide whether we thought it was a move that would make us better, and we had to make that decision now. We decided to move forward.
On whether the Browns expect Richardson to play better with the Colts given the quality of players around him: (Joe Banner) I just think Trents a really good player, so I think he would have done really well here, and I think hes going to do really well there. Thats at least my opinion.
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.
-
The reasons for Chud's termination can be found here, as can a couple of historical facts that should give us some hope for Cleveland's future.
http://factoryofsadness.sportsblog.com/posts/239409/chudzinski_fired_a_closer_look.html
-
It's like a divorce, while it's horribly tough, it's better for everyone to do it quickly so everyone can move on and improve their lives. Yes the FO hired him and fired him quickly, but at least they didn't drag out their mistake for several seasons.
It's like a divorce, while it's horribly tough, it's better for everyone to do it quickly so everyone can move on and improve their lives. Yes the FO hired him and fired him quickly, but at least they didn't drag out their mistake for several seasons.
I've been divorced... this is worse...
I would take 3 Steelers fans to take your place on this board than have to read the dumb shit you make us read.
Thank you, ED...
Im sorry I think a lot of you who are happy about this firing really dont know what your talking about. I pray the Redskins hire Chud as the head coach of the Skins immediately. I think hes the next great coach out there. If Brian Hoyer doesnt get injured the Browns would have won the division. I cant believe they only gave Chud 1 year. Its just a shame.
For goodness sake he made Jason Campbell look good at times.
Good to see you again... Thanks for the objective view, just please do not send Shanahan our way.
I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer.
Based on practice and pre-season, it was a more than understandable decision.
How about a little credit for leap-frogging Hoyer over Campbell when Wheezy went down? Or was that a bad decision as well?
-
TCPO,
You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.
What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?
When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.
Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.
-
TCPO,
You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.
What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?
When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.
Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.
TCPO,
You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.
What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?
When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.
Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.
Richardson was traded because the deal was too good to pass up. Richardson is what he is, a shot yardage back that lacks any breakaway skills. As one Browns source put it, "We were getting killed when we made that deal, but now people are seeing the same things we saw in him. There is a lot to like about Trent. He's solid, dependable, hard-working. The problem is that he's not explosive."
This statement really sums up how Richardson was viewed by the Browns brass:
"I saw him score on a 1-yard touchdown in his first game there (a 27-7 win over San Francisco) and the announcer said that was why the Colts traded for him. And all I could think was that play was right in Trent's wheelhouse. He'll make those plays for you all day. But when you need seven yards, he'll still get you three."
Richardson is a nice guy, a hard nosed player and a good player to have on your team when you need three yards. But he's not first-round material and the fact that this FO was able to get a first rounder for a guy averaging less than 3 YPC is a miracle. It is literally the only redeeming quality of this FO at the current moment.
We were able to lose 10+ games with Richardson last season. He wasn't needed here.
It had nothing to do with the scheme. It had everything to do with the fact that he's not really a superstar player.
-
That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.
-
That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.
That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.
Which is a completely fair and reasonable assumption.
We don't know yet what Richardson has yielded. If we turn that pick into a franchise QB then it will be worth it. Anything less, fans may be upset.
I wouldn't say we've gotten worse at running the ball, because our backs have nearly the same YPC as TR does on the season. We've certainly run the ball a lot less, but the effectiveness for the most part is still there.
I think the plan all along was to throw the ball 40 times per game to fully see what our passing game had. Those were the directives.
-
Agreed. And that's the part I don't really understand. How do you insist on throwing the ball so much and then blame your lack of success on the fact that you didn't yet have a QB? To me, that seems contradictory. If you don't have a QB, maybe don't throw the ball so much.
A few years ago, the Broncos put Tebow in at QB. They knew then what everyone else has since SLOWLY accepted: the guy can't pass very well. So you know what they did? They passed less. Now obviously Tebow was an athletic guy who was good at running the ball, and the Browns obviously weren't in that same situation, but there's a useful idea there. Recognize your team's limitations and adjust accordingly. Don't ignore those limitations during the games and then blame your lack of success on them afterward. If you know you don't have a QB, then don't center your offense around passing a lot.
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