Keep Pettine in Place at Least 1 More Year
-
Mud: I do have a problem with people [like jrb, not you] who stick to their initial "fact-free assessment" when analytics show they're wrong:
Exactly what is that pride based on?
If they've got nothing.. and someone patiently explains precisely what was missed in the initial ASSUMPTION.. they should [must!] drop the data-poor first hypothesis and adopt the second.
Or, they can continue being stupid - and objectively wrong.
In short: Just because someone Has an opinion does not mean that opinion has Merit.
Mud: I do have a problem with people [like jrb, not you] who stick to their initial "fact-free assessment" when analytics show they're wrong:
Exactly what is that pride based on?
If they've got nothing.. and someone patiently explains precisely what was missed in the initial ASSUMPTION.. they should [must!] drop the data-poor first hypothesis and adopt the second.
Or, they can continue being stupid - and objectively wrong.
In short: Just because someone Has an opinion does not mean that opinion has Merit.
sigh, it's people like you who make this board such a crap ass place sometimes. I'm having a good discussion with someone whom I've ceded points to while arguing my own but that makes me stupid. Meanwhile you sit in your armchair troll pose thinking because you learned the word hypothesis in 8th grade biology you're smart.
Fine, here's my hypothesis: Cleveland has suffered injuries to some key positions but Pettine and O'Neil are highly to blame for the players playing poorly. Pettine was able to ride high by playing weaker competition last season and got exposed when he got against better competition for who he really is.
On the surface the low hanging fruit is the passing defense. I don't disagree that's a factor-you don't lose Joe Haden and get better more often than not. It's also true that we were the 8th ranked pass defense last year and now are 22nd this year. It's ALSO true that the rushing defense isn't much better, in fact the YPC is exactly the same as last year at 4.5 yards per carry.
So let's start then with my idea about strength of schedule. The browns in 2014 had an SOS of tied 26th, and in 2015 9th. There's nothing you can do about that of course, but Pettine/O'Neil and his defense had to actually play some big boys this season more often than not. That's just a matter of fact idea going forward with what I'm saying. Delving into what I'm talking about, I've already stated the Browns nearly give up a TD more a game than last year. In addition, the Browns have allowed at least 30 points 8 times this year. In 2014 through 13 games that occurred exactly one time in week one against the steelers.
With that in mind, let's get into the players. I'm not going to look at every position here, but let's recall who we have from 2014 to 2015:Joe Haden, dante whitner, , Craig Robertson (meh), Dansby, Kawuan Williams, Gipson (coming off injury), the Bryants (one coming off injury), Kruger (who blows but that's beside the point), Mingo (meh) and others I'm sure I'm leaving out. I point this out because there is strong talent there. Yes, that's subjective but there's a high amount of players returning in this system of the Browns who are good football players and put up the numbers to be the 9th ranked defense by rank in 2014. In addition to this we add good veterans like Starks and Williams to provide starter quality depth. We draft two good sounding draft guys to beef up the defensive line including the widely considered #1 DT prospect.
So what happens in 2015? We look objectively (your buzzword) bad and are giving up tons of more points and yards. A guy like Haden is out for a good while and Gipson and and Whitner miss 3 and 2 games respectively. Let's not forgot Gipson missed 5 games the previous year with injury which evens the stats out some in that regard. We are playing stronger competition and things just look piss poor at best. We literally have opposing QB's playing backyard football against guys who just a year ago were making plays. So where does the fault lie? Did those guys just have fluke years where they looked like an above average defense as a unit? Or, as I believe strongly, did Pettine/Oneil benefit from playing an easy schedule that didn't expose his flaws as a schemer until late last season and into this season?
I'll write one more thing about it-there's a pretty nifty tool called expected points allowed that uses advanced statistics (which I'm sure you would not understand) to determine a stronger opinion of defense. For example, it might note that while a defense gave up 30 points there were factors such as allowing a team to score while in prevent mode or after a bad offensive turnover. According to PFR, the Browns number in 2014 in that regard was +0.76 and in 2015? -91.92. That's nothing short of incredible and points to just how a defense really is. So, if you want to believe that ALL those guys who had good years before regressed THAT badly without coaching being a huge problem, then I don't know know what to say.
I hope that's enough stats for you. The funny part is Mud was making good points and I was happy to see it all. I appreciate what he does for the Board but people like you should just leave.
Edit: I meant to add this article, but it really addresses how I feel as well. It may have been noted before but talks all about the scheme and its inherent flaws. http://www.si.com/thecauldron/2015/10/21/mike-pettine-cleveland-browns-defense-problems-afc-north
-
jrb,
No offense, but I here's the difference I see between what you and Mud are doing...
You are using gross, macro stats, newly and most recently PFR's, and inferring it can't be all players, it has to be coaching. You even included Haden as one of the constants between the two seasons.
Mud is delving into player numbers showing it is players (and which players) and that coaching has been making adjustments to minimize negative player impacts.
BTW... the impact of Strength of Schedule is not well captured by stating the ranking. The use of it as a predictor, if any, is in the winning percentage behind it. And the jump from 2014's 0.465 to 2015's 0.543 is huge.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
jrb,
No offense, but I here's the difference I see between what you and Mud are doing...
You are using gross, macro stats, newly and most recently PFR's, and inferring it can't be all players, it has to be coaching. You even included Haden as one of the constants between the two seasons.
Mud is delving into player numbers showing it is players (and which players) and that coaching has been making adjustments to minimize negative player impacts.
BTW... the impact of Strength of Schedule is not well captured by stating the ranking. The use of it as a predictor, if any, is in the winning percentage behind it. And the jump from 2014's 0.465 to 2015's 0.543 is huge.
jrb,
No offense, but I here's the difference I see between what you and Mud are doing...
You are using gross, macro stats, newly and most recently PFR's, and inferring it can't be all players, it has to be coaching. You even included Haden as one of the constants between the two seasons.
Mud is delving into player numbers showing it is players (and which players) and that coaching has been making adjustments to minimize negative player impacts.
BTW... the impact of Strength of Schedule is not well captured by stating the ranking. The use of it as a predictor, if any, is in the winning percentage behind it. And the jump from 2014's 0.465 to 2015's 0.543 is huge.
Yep-I respect everything he is saying and really get what he's going for, I just disagree with him fundamentally. Honestly and not to take credit from the article I linked but that really defines the "eye-test" material I'm talking about better than I did. I see good players making bad decision based on scheme and not being put in a position of strength. Mud sees it as bad players which ya know what honestly could be true. I'd be baffled if personnel moves didn't occur this offseason so one of our opinions will prove to have more merit in the coming years. Hell, I'd love to be wrong though if it meant the dumpster fire of a defense is improved.
-
"Sure, Steve... also could be that any development that JM has enjoyed was made possible by his HC. "
Oh anything is possible since none of us really know anything...
But let me ask you this: does Mike Pettine seem like a nurturing kind of guy? You know somebody that's been making the players better under his tutelage? Or does he seem like a guy the doesn't really like rookies and especially doesn't like Johnny and prefers to go with guys who already kind of know their position?
Hasn't seemed to have been effective if that's been his approach to the entire team.
What's your own feeling?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
"Sure, Steve... also could be that any development that JM has enjoyed was made possible by his HC. "
Oh anything is possible since none of us really know anything...
But let me ask you this: does Mike Pettine seem like a nurturing kind of guy? You know somebody that's been making the players better under his tutelage? Or does he seem like a guy the doesn't really like rookies and especially doesn't like Johnny and prefers to go with guys who already kind of know their position?
Hasn't seemed to have been effective if that's been his approach to the entire team.
What's your own feeling?
WSS
"Sure, Steve... also could be that any development that JM has enjoyed was made possible by his HC. "
Oh anything is possible since none of us really know anything...
But let me ask you this: does Mike Pettine seem like a nurturing kind of guy? You know somebody that's been making the players better under his tutelage? Or does he seem like a guy the doesn't really like rookies and especially doesn't like Johnny and prefers to go with guys who already kind of know their position?
Hasn't seemed to have been effective if that's been his approach to the entire team.
What's your own feeling?
WSS
Pet does not come across to Me as a coach who makes everyone around him better... I'm just not seeing it.
-
I'm for keepimg pettine IF he plays johnny for real and doesn't put him in the timeout chair every other game for a journeyman
-
Well almost time for another one of their come to Jesus retreats, so we'll see how it goes shortly after the season ends.
-
If Pettine returns next year, expect even more detereoration. Fire that fat ass.
-
Wish I'd been able to divine how far in the past your past tense was... especially since it's demonstrably false.
Last year:
- Pet established the principle of earning playing time by how you practice... a top pick is still riding a lot of pine as a result... when he is active.
- Last year we cut our prize RB because he did not play well with others.
- Last year we suspended a rookie QB and a vet WR for being late to meetings.
Need more?
Your turn... please list some of the Flip-flops you see.
Also would you please decode this for me?
This franchise is beat-down. I don't think playing dog house and teenage crush games with players was the way to go. If Pettine operated under his own system, he would still be riding the pine as well. I've seen the guy play a lot of games with players heads and in the media, I haven't seen much coaching-up to instill confidence in his leadership, trust or in the players mindsets.
Suspending players isn't a good coaching trait, taking talent that is mis-aligned and making them productive without having to discipline them (especially in public) or make examples out of them are good coaching traits. Talent such as a Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon thrived under better coaching and a better system. Players such as Terry Glenn crumbled once a coach made them a notch in his belt.
The decoder you asked for was in no one reputable to take an underclassman and media sensation under their wing. Hoyer had his own problems looking over his own shoulders. We waited with a microscope for Manziel to give reason to be torn down. Everyone in the stands knew it was coming, the difference is that one person had the responsibility for his staff to not wait for it to happen but get the kid focused and ready for business. To make him an example at the end of year #2 was a task anyone could have done. If I were Haslem, I would have expected more from a management making millions in a multi-million dollar establishment and multi-Billion dollar entity. Pettine did the task of a Pee Wee coach and you guys want to sit here and pat him on the back for it.
We are in last place. Need more?
This franchise is beat-down. I don't think playing dog house and teenage crush games with players was the way to go. If Pettine operated under his own system, he would still be riding the pine as well. I've seen the guy play a lot of games with players heads and in the media, I haven't seen much coaching-up to instill confidence in his leadership, trust or in the players mindsets.
Suspending players isn't a good coaching trait, taking talent that is mis-aligned and making them productive without having to discipline them (especially in public) or make examples out of them are good coaching traits. Talent such as a Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon thrived under better coaching and a better system. Players such as Terry Glenn crumbled once a coach made them a notch in his belt.
The decoder you asked for was in no one reputable to take an underclassman and media sensation under their wing. Hoyer had his own problems looking over his own shoulders. We waited with a microscope for Manziel to give reason to be torn down. Everyone in the stands knew it was coming, the difference is that one person had the responsibility for his staff to not wait for it to happen but get the kid focused and ready for business. To make him an example at the end of year #2 was a task anyone could have done. If I were Haslem, I would have expected more from a management making millions in a multi-million dollar establishment and multi-Billion dollar entity. Pettine did the task of a Pee Wee coach and you guys want to sit here and pat him on the back for it.
We are in last place. Need more?
.
Thatta boy Atenears! More? We were ranked 32nd at running the ball heading into week 13. Not to be outdone, our defense was ranked 32nd and points allowed. There's phases of football but I don't want to leave out Special Education, I mean Special Teams. We had a ton of penalties all year and we had only 2 wins heading into our matchup with the 32nd ranked offense. Should I argue with Bill Parcells that we aren't what our record says we are? He'd love to get interrupted with - that's not what PFF says.
This coaching staff was hand selected by Pettine and he and his staff had tons of say/input on the draft.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
This franchise is beat-down. I don't think playing dog house and teenage crush games with players was the way to go. If Pettine operated under his own system, he would still be riding the pine as well. I've seen the guy play a lot of games with players heads and in the media, I haven't seen much coaching-up to instill confidence in his leadership, trust or in the players mindsets.
Suspending players isn't a good coaching trait, taking talent that is mis-aligned and making them productive without having to discipline them (especially in public) or make examples out of them are good coaching traits. Talent such as a Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon thrived under better coaching and a better system. Players such as Terry Glenn crumbled once a coach made them a notch in his belt.
The decoder you asked for was in no one reputable to take an underclassman and media sensation under their wing. Hoyer had his own problems looking over his own shoulders. We waited with a microscope for Manziel to give reason to be torn down. Everyone in the stands knew it was coming, the difference is that one person had the responsibility for his staff to not wait for it to happen but get the kid focused and ready for business. To make him an example at the end of year #2 was a task anyone could have done. If I were Haslem, I would have expected more from a management making millions in a multi-million dollar establishment and multi-Billion dollar entity. Pettine did the task of a Pee Wee coach and you guys want to sit here and pat him on the back for it.
We are in last place. Need more?
.
Thatta boy Atenears! More? We were ranked 32nd at running the ball heading into week 13. Not to be outdone, our defense was ranked 32nd and points allowed. There's phases of football but I don't want to leave out Special Education, I mean Special Teams. We had a ton of penalties all year and we had only 2 wins heading into our matchup with the 32nd ranked offense. Should I argue with Bill Parcells that we aren't what our record says we are? He'd love to get interrupted with - that's not what PFF says.
This coaching staff was hand selected by Pettine and he and his staff had tons of say/input on the draft.
.
Thatta boy Atenears! More? We were ranked 32nd at running the ball heading into week 13. Not to be outdone, our defense was ranked 32nd and points allowed. There's phases of football but I don't want to leave out Special Education, I mean Special Teams. We had a ton of penalties all year and we had only 2 wins heading into our matchup with the 32nd ranked offense. Should I argue with Bill Parcells that we aren't what our record says we are? He'd love to get interrupted with - that's not what PFF says.
This coaching staff was hand selected by Pettine and he and his staff had tons of say/input on the draft.
Well said-even our best unit at the start of the year in ST is getting embarrassed out there now.
-
Our pass defense failing this year is a direct result of several things:
1. Unreliable pass rush (to put it mildly). We simply cannot get consistent pressure on the quarterback, no matter what we try. We've tried sending a myriad of blitzes, disguising coverages, stunts, rotating players...whatever. Nothing seems to work. Sure, we had two stellar games against inferior competition, but the consistency is sorely lacking. I have visions of us sending blitzing where our guys simply get absorbed into the line, and their impact is minimal. Sacks aren't the only measure of a good pass rush, but I don't remember us getting many pressures either. Sub-par pass rush results in our guys covering longer in the backfield, and I don't care WHO you are, if you have to cover long enough, your guy will get open.
2. Injuries. Yes, every team has them, but Haden never got going, and neither did Gipson. Our backups weren't up to the task, which leads me to...
3. Gilbert. Just wow. How bad did this pick screw us up? Many of us had visions of Haden and Gilbert locking down the opposition, with Williams keeping the slot in check. We'd have Tramon in the mix as well, and Desir was looking like a steal. Nothing, and I mean nothing, played out like we hoped.
-
"Sure, Steve... also could be that any development that JM has enjoyed was made possible by his HC. "
Oh anything is possible since none of us really know anything...
But let me ask you this: does Mike Pettine seem like a nurturing kind of guy? You know somebody that's been making the players better under his tutelage? Or does he seem like a guy the doesn't really like rookies and especially doesn't like Johnny and prefers to go with guys who already kind of know their position?
Hasn't seemed to have been effective if that's been his approach to the entire team.
What's your own feeling?
WSS
"Sure, Steve... also could be that any development that JM has enjoyed was made possible by his HC. "
Oh anything is possible since none of us really know anything...
But let me ask you this: does Mike Pettine seem like a nurturing kind of guy? You know somebody that's been making the players better under his tutelage? Or does he seem like a guy the doesn't really like rookies and especially doesn't like Johnny and prefers to go with guys who already kind of know their position?
Hasn't seemed to have been effective if that's been his approach to the entire team.
What's your own feeling?
Agree, that neither of us "know" with certainty. We likely also agree that only one of us is seeing the evidence to support our view objectively.
First, "nurturing" is an approach not a result. Second, a HC does not tutor players.
With the above clarified... Yes, Pet strikes me as nurturing. I believe he really does care about his players as people. I believe he does care about Johnny as a person. I believe Pet took no joy out of suspending JM last year. I believe he took no joy out of benching him this year. I believe he did both to get JM's attention.
Do you honestly believe that the discipline has had nothing to do with JM's development?
As for not "liking" JM or any other player... I believe it is a non-factor. I believe Pet focusses on behaviors... and there has been both precious little to like about JM's behavior and, until recently, very little performance to make his behaviors worth having around.
One of the core principles of managing people is that you always preserve their core being by addressing their behaviors only. When those behaviors include lying, then the line between behavior and core gets very, very thin. Even then I think Pet preserved JM's core.
Whenever a rookie has shown he is better than the veteran options presented, then that rookie has started. Bitonio was exhibit A. Shelton is exhibit B. Orchard seems to have developed into exhibit C. In a limited role K'waun also qualified last year.
Time and time again "fans" have clamored for a player here and there to start. JM in 2014 and Erving this season are the two most ready examples. Which of those two proved in their debut that Pet was holding them back simply due to their sin of being a "rookie"?
Well said-even our best unit at the start of the year in ST is getting embarrassed out there now.
And what has changed?
-
And...if Pettine hates Johnny, like so many think....why did he even bother with hiring Kevin OConnell?....
Youd think hiring the Coach that Johnny hired would be a big plus and indicate that this team is doing whatever they can to get Johnny on the road to success.....
-
This franchise is beat-down. I don't think playing dog house and teenage crush games with players was the way to go. If Pettine operated under his own system, he would still be riding the pine as well. I've seen the guy play a lot of games with players heads and in the media, I haven't seen much coaching-up to instill confidence in his leadership, trust or in the players mindsets.
Suspending players isn't a good coaching trait, taking talent that is mis-aligned and making them productive without having to discipline them (especially in public) or make examples out of them are good coaching traits. Talent such as a Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon thrived under better coaching and a better system. Players such as Terry Glenn crumbled once a coach made them a notch in his belt.
The decoder you asked for was in no one reputable to take an underclassman and media sensation under their wing. Hoyer had his own problems looking over his own shoulders. We waited with a microscope for Manziel to give reason to be torn down. Everyone in the stands knew it was coming, the difference is that one person had the responsibility for his staff to not wait for it to happen but get the kid focused and ready for business. To make him an example at the end of year #2 was a task anyone could have done. If I were Haslem, I would have expected more from a management making millions in a multi-million dollar establishment and multi-Billion dollar entity. Pettine did the task of a Pee Wee coach and you guys want to sit here and pat him on the back for it.
We are in last place. Need more?
.
Thatta boy Atenears! More? We were ranked 32nd at running the ball heading into week 13. Not to be outdone, our defense was ranked 32nd and points allowed. There's phases of football but I don't want to leave out Special Education, I mean Special Teams. We had a ton of penalties all year and we had only 2 wins heading into our matchup with the 32nd ranked offense. Should I argue with Bill Parcells that we aren't what our record says we are? He'd love to get interrupted with - that's not what PFF says.
This coaching staff was hand selected by Pettine and he and his staff had tons of say/input on the draft.
Thatta boy Atenears! More? We were ranked 32nd at running the ball heading into week 13. Not to be outdone, our defense was ranked 32nd and points allowed. There's phases of football but I don't want to leave out Special Education, I mean Special Teams. We had a ton of penalties all year and we had only 2 wins heading into our matchup with the 32nd ranked offense. Should I argue with Bill Parcells that we aren't what our record says we are? He'd love to get interrupted with - that's not what PFF says.
This coaching staff was hand selected by Pettine and he and his staff had tons of say/input on the draft.
Reading the SI article confirmed what I was thinking- our defense is so complicated, mistakes are being made. I've seen plenty off gap integrity screwups result in big gains. And our tackling technique is pretty bad too.
-
"Sure, Steve... also could be that any development that JM has enjoyed was made possible by his HC. "
Oh anything is possible since none of us really know anything...
But let me ask you this: does Mike Pettine seem like a nurturing kind of guy? You know somebody that's been making the players better under his tutelage? Or does he seem like a guy the doesn't really like rookies and especially doesn't like Johnny and prefers to go with guys who already kind of know their position?
Hasn't seemed to have been effective if that's been his approach to the entire team.
What's your own feeling?
Agree, that neither of us "know" with certainty. We likely also agree that only one of us is seeing the evidence to support our view objectively.
First, "nurturing" is an approach not a result. Second, a HC does not tutor players.
With the above clarified... Yes, Pet strikes me as nurturing. I believe he really does care about his players as people. I believe he does care about Johnny as a person. I believe Pet took no joy out of suspending JM last year. I believe he took no joy out of benching him this year. I believe he did both to get JM's attention.
Do you honestly believe that the discipline has had nothing to do with JM's development?
As for not "liking" JM or any other player... I believe it is a non-factor. I believe Pet focusses on behaviors... and there has been both precious little to like about JM's behavior and, until recently, very little performance to make his behaviors worth having around.
One of the core principles of managing people is that you always preserve their core being by addressing their behaviors only. When those behaviors include lying, then the line between behavior and core gets very, very thin. Even then I think Pet preserved JM's core.
Whenever a rookie has shown he is better than the veteran options presented, then that rookie has started. Bitonio was exhibit A. Shelton is exhibit B. Orchard seems to have developed into exhibit C. In a limited role K'waun also qualified last year.
Time and time again "fans" have clamored for a player here and there to start. JM in 2014 and Erving this season are the two most ready examples. Which of those two proved in their debut that Pet was holding them back simply due to their sin of being a "rookie"?
Well said-even our best unit at the start of the year in ST is getting embarrassed out there now.
And what has changed?
WSSAgree, that neither of us "know" with certainty. We likely also agree that only one of us is seeing the evidence to support our view objectively.
β I would agree with that. You think its you and I think it's me.
βFirst, "nurturing" is an approach not a result. Second, a HC does not tutor players.
β please, semantic nitpicking? I think it was you that suggested at the outset if the coachsubject action made Johnny a better player, I think that fits the description but...β
With the above clarified... Yes, Pet strikes me as nurturing. I believe he really does care about his players as people. I believe he does care about Johnny as a person. I believe Pet took no joy out of suspending JM last year. I believe he took no joy out of benching him this year. I believe he did both to get JM's attention.
β honestly, it's hard to tell. I still believe players learn by playing. You can read that lyric sheet or study that playbook all night long but one time in front of the crowd is a million times more effective. And had Johnny been named starter on day 1 how much better might he be today? And how much worse could our record have been?β
Do you honestly believe that the discipline has had nothing to do with JM's development?
β haha I don't deal in absolutes. It most certainly might have had something to do with it.β
As for not "liking" JM or any other player... I believe it is a non-factor. I believe Pet focusses on behaviors... and there has been both precious little to like about JM's behavior and, until recently, very little performance to make his behaviors worth having around.
β I agree with that but where we disagree is that I don't think the party meant jackshit to Johnny's preparation or dedication. I think drawing the line in the sand in the first place was silly.
Do you think he ordered the defensive backs not to listen to hip hop music because it might be offensive? Or told Joe Thomas he couldn't go hunting because there might be PETA members with season tickets? Still nobody ever claimed that his preparation or performance suffered because of the weekend out.
β
One of the core principles of managing people is that you always preserve their core being by addressing their behaviors only. When those behaviors include lying, then the line between behavior and core gets very, very thin. Even then I think Pet preserved JM's core.
β again I don't think the behavior was outrageous or detrimental to the team. Johnny probably regretted bullshitting about it. But then it becomes the idea of punishing the team and the fans. Alright Billy didn't clean up his room so nobody in the family gets to go to Cedar Point. But daddy the tickets are paid for. I don't care.
β Whenever a rookie has shown he is better than the veteran options presented, then that rookie has started. Bitonio was exhibit A. Shelton is exhibit B. Orchard seems to have developed into exhibit C. In a limited role K'waun also qualified last year.
β I don't think that's always the case with quarterbacks. I think a first-round choice tends to start early and get the bumps and bruises over withβ
Time and time again "fans" have clamored for a player here and there to start. JM in 2014 and Erving this season are the two most ready examples. Which of those two proved in their debut that Pet was holding them back simply due to their sin of being a "rookie"?
β I honestly don't know if Johnny's attitude in 14 would have been better had he been anointed rather than insulted on day 1. And I do believe that looking at the camera and say well you better learn to be a backup is something of a slap in the face then I can't imagine any other coach doing to any first round pick.
Still this is now that was then.
And remember Cameron Irving was drafted for depth mostly for his contribution as a center with the idea that Mack was on his way toward the door.β
And what has changed?
-
Well... we're getting nowhere fast...
β please, semantic nitpicking? I think it was you that suggested at the outset if the coachsubject action made Johnny a better player, I think that fits the description but...β
It's not "sematic nitpicking" when you ask a question abut an approach and then tie it to a result in the follow up.
β honestly, it's hard to tell. I still believe players learn by playing. You can read that lyric sheet or study that playbook all night long but one time in front of the crowd is a million times more effective. And had Johnny been named starter on day 1 how much better might he be today? And how much worse could our record have been?β
In 2014? As many as 7 games worse... In 2015? Hard to tell because JM is not the same person for many reasons.
β I agree with that but where we disagree is that I don't think the party meant jackshit to Johnny's preparation or dedication. I think drawing the line in the sand in the first place was silly.
Do you think he ordered the defensive backs not to listen to hip hop music because it might be offensive? Or told Joe Thomas he couldn't go hunting because there might be PETA members with season tickets? Still nobody ever claimed that his preparation or performance suffered because of the weekend out. β
β again I don't think the behavior was outrageous or detrimental to the team. Johnny probably regretted bullshitting about it. But then it becomes the idea of punishing the team and the fans. Alright Billy didn't clean up his room so nobody in the family gets to go to Cedar Point. But daddy the tickets are paid for. I don't care. β
First... I have seen zero about hip-hop or hunting. While I would not be surprised if parties have beenasked to refrain from indulging in either in the locker room, Google doesn't seem to know what you are referring to either. Links?
As for JM's partying... I don't think it was an impact either, but the organization (not just Pet) apparently asked that JM not appear in public as a drunken buffoon... may have even tied it to the starting gig... and apparently JM gave his word. Does calling it "bullshitting" make you feel better about lying?
And while many fans feel punished... many don't... and the team clearly wasn't since it was a toss up between JM and McC at the time. The combination of McC being nicked and wanting to see a committed JM were the deciding factors. Just turned out JM's commitment did not run as deep as was expected.
β I don't think that's always the case with quarterbacks. I think a first-round choice tends to start early and get the bumps and bruises over withβ
Doesn't matter what you think is always the case or not. This point was not hypothetical. I showed cases when rookies earned starts and performed well. What can you point to that JM showed in 2014 that remotely showed he was ready to start as a rookie?
Time and time again "fans" have clamored for a player here and there to start. JM in 2014 and Erving this season are the two most ready examples. Which of those two proved in their debut that Pet was holding them back simply due to their sin of being a "rookie"?
β I honestly don't know if Johnny's attitude in 14 would have been better had he been anointed rather than insulted on day 1. And I do believe that looking at the camera and say well you better learn to be a backup is something of a slap in the face then I can't imagine any other coach doing to any first round pick.β
Do you mean Round 1 QBs that were told they would sit and learn (and like it)... Like Bortles? Like Mariotta? Like Carr? Can you name a recent QB that was openly handed the starting role his rookie year not named Luck? Maybe RG3, but not sure you should claim that one to help your case.
βAnd remember Cameron Irving was drafted for depth mostly for his contribution as a center with the idea that Mack was on his way toward the door.β
lol... so we drafted a lineman in Rnd 1 to sit for a year until an opening developed? C'mon, man! There were many here who started calling for Erving to replace Schwartz or Greco before the pick following Cam was announced... and continued to do so through camp. Not so many now are there?
Entirety of my point was that all of the evidence on the field points to one thing:
Pet and staff have been far better than us at identifying when starters are in fact ready.
Go Browns...
-
Well... we're getting nowhere fast...
β please, semantic nitpicking? I think it was you that suggested at the outset if the coachsubject action made Johnny a better player, I think that fits the description but...β
It's not "sematic nitpicking" when you ask a question abut an approach and then tie it to a result in the follow up.
β honestly, it's hard to tell. I still believe players learn by playing. You can read that lyric sheet or study that playbook all night long but one time in front of the crowd is a million times more effective. And had Johnny been named starter on day 1 how much better might he be today? And how much worse could our record have been?β
In 2014? As many as 7 games worse... In 2015? Hard to tell because JM is not the same person for many reasons.
β I agree with that but where we disagree is that I don't think the party meant jackshit to Johnny's preparation or dedication. I think drawing the line in the sand in the first place was silly.
Do you think he ordered the defensive backs not to listen to hip hop music because it might be offensive? Or told Joe Thomas he couldn't go hunting because there might be PETA members with season tickets? Still nobody ever claimed that his preparation or performance suffered because of the weekend out. β
β again I don't think the behavior was outrageous or detrimental to the team. Johnny probably regretted bullshitting about it. But then it becomes the idea of punishing the team and the fans. Alright Billy didn't clean up his room so nobody in the family gets to go to Cedar Point. But daddy the tickets are paid for. I don't care. β
First... I have seen zero about hip-hop or hunting. While I would not be surprised if parties have beenasked to refrain from indulging in either in the locker room, Google doesn't seem to know what you are referring to either. Links?
As for JM's partying... I don't think it was an impact either, but the organization (not just Pet) apparently asked that JM not appear in public as a drunken buffoon... may have even tied it to the starting gig... and apparently JM gave his word. Does calling it "bullshitting" make you feel better about lying?
And while many fans feel punished... many don't... and the team clearly wasn't since it was a toss up between JM and McC at the time. The combination of McC being nicked and wanting to see a committed JM were the deciding factors. Just turned out JM's commitment did not run as deep as was expected.
β I don't think that's always the case with quarterbacks. I think a first-round choice tends to start early and get the bumps and bruises over withβ
Doesn't matter what you think is always the case or not. This point was not hypothetical. I showed cases when rookies earned starts and performed well. What can you point to that JM showed in 2014 that remotely showed he was ready to start as a rookie?
Time and time again "fans" have clamored for a player here and there to start. JM in 2014 and Erving this season are the two most ready examples. Which of those two proved in their debut that Pet was holding them back simply due to their sin of being a "rookie"?
β I honestly don't know if Johnny's attitude in 14 would have been better had he been anointed rather than insulted on day 1. And I do believe that looking at the camera and say well you better learn to be a backup is something of a slap in the face then I can't imagine any other coach doing to any first round pick.β
Do you mean Round 1 QBs that were told they would sit and learn (and like it)... Like Bortles? Like Mariotta? Like Carr? Can you name a recent QB that was openly handed the starting role his rookie year not named Luck? Maybe RG3, but not sure you should claim that one to help your case.
βAnd remember Cameron Irving was drafted for depth mostly for his contribution as a center with the idea that Mack was on his way toward the door.β
lol... so we drafted a lineman in Rnd 1 to sit for a year until an opening developed? C'mon, man! There were many here who started calling for Erving to replace Schwartz or Greco before the pick following Cam was announced... and continued to do so through camp. Not so many now are there?
Entirety of my point was that all of the evidence on the field points to one thing:
Pet and staff have been far better than us at identifying when starters are in fact ready.
Go Browns...Well... we're getting nowhere fast...
β ha. No shit amigoβ
β please, semantic nitpicking? I think it was you that suggested at the outset if the coachsubject action made Johnny a better player, I think that fits the description but...β
It's not "sematic nitpicking" when you ask a question abut an approach and then tie it to a result in the follow up.
β honestly, it's hard to tell. I still believe players learn by playing. You can read that lyric sheet or study that playbook all night long but one time in front of the crowd is a million times more effective. And had Johnny been named starter on day 1 how much better might he be today? And how much worse could our record have been?β
In 2014? As many as 7 games worse... In 2015? Hard to tell because JM is not the same person for many reasons.
β 2015β
β I agree with that but where we disagree is that I don't think the party meant jackshit to Johnny's preparation or dedication. I think drawing the line in the sand in the first place was silly.
Do you think he ordered the defensive backs not to listen to hip hop music because it might be offensive? Or told Joe Thomas he couldn't go hunting because there might be PETA members with season tickets? Still nobody ever claimed that his preparation or performance suffered because of the weekend out. β
β again I don't think the behavior was outrageous or detrimental to the team. Johnny probably regretted bullshitting about it. But then it becomes the idea of punishing the team and the fans. Alright Billy didn't clean up his room so nobody in the family gets to go to Cedar Point. But daddy the tickets are paid for. I don't care.
βFirst... I have seen zero about hip-hop or hunting. While I would not be surprised if parties have beenasked to refrain from indulging in either in the locker room, Google doesn't seem to know what you are referring to either. Links?
β gee whiz it never happened. I'm saying that telling someone he's not allowed to go to a bar would be the same as telling somebody he can't go hunting or listen to rap music. Unlike killing someone he can't carry a pistol with the Crips , or smoke crack , or drive drunk or pound the shit out of his wife , or rape a chick in a bathroom . Those kinds of things . β
As for JM's partying... I don't think it was an impact either, but the organization (not just Pet) apparently asked that JM not appear in public as a drunken buffoon... may have even tied it to the starting gig... and apparently JM gave his word. Does calling it "bullshitting" make you feel better about lying?
β yes it does. I will assume the coaching staffs bends the truth on a regular basis in interviews. Should they be fired for it? As for acting like a buffoon, he is singing karaoke an act in which no one looks cool.β
And while many fans feel punished... many don't... and the team clearly wasn't since it was a toss up between JM and McC at the time. The combination of McC being nicked and wanting to see a committed JM were the deciding factors. Just turned out JM's commitment did not run as deep as was expected.
β a toss up? β
β I don't think that's always the case with quarterbacks. I think a first-round choice tends to start early and get the bumps and bruises over withβ
Doesn't matter what you think is always the case or not. This point was not hypothetical. I showed cases when rookies earned starts and performed well. What can you point to that JM showed in 2014 that remotely showed he was ready to start as a rookie?
β so Marietta Winston sat on the bench for a whole season? Or 3 games?β
Time and time again "fans" have clamored for a player here and there to start. JM in 2014 and Erving this season are the two most ready examples. Which of those two proved in their debut that Pet was holding them back simply due to their sin of being a "rookie"?
β I honestly don't know if Johnny's attitude in 14 would have been better had he been anointed rather than insulted on day 1. And I do believe that looking at the camera and say well you better learn to be a backup is something of a slap in the face then I can't imagine any other coach doing to any first round pick.β
Do you mean Round 1 QBs that were told they would sit and learn (and like it)... Like Bortles? Like Mariotta? Like Carr? Can you name a recent QB that was openly handed the starting role his rookie year not named Luck? Maybe RG3, but not sure you should claim that one to help your case.
β see above.β
βAnd remember Cameron Irving was drafted for depth mostly for his contribution as a center with the idea that Mack was on his way toward the door.β
lol... so we drafted a lineman in Rnd 1 to sit for a year until an opening developed? C'mon, man! There were many here who started calling for Erving to replace Schwartz or Greco before the pick following Cam was announced... and continued to do so through camp. Not so many now are there?
β so you think this outstanding center was selected to step in and replace a guard who may or may not be leaving?β
Entirety of my point was that all of the evidence on the field points to one thing:
Pet and staff have been far better than us at identifying when starters are in fact ready.
β I don't know if you call it evidence but you are welcome to your opinion and I guess we will find out sometime next season.
One piece of evidence that hard to overlook is this year's record.β
Go Browns...
β indubitably!β
-
If Johnny Manziel is successful, the Browns chances of success are increased, that is exactly in Pettine's best interest. To think otherwise is just being antagonistic.
-
If Johnny Manziel is successful, the Browns chances of success are increased, that is exactly in Pettine's best interest. To think otherwise is just being antagonistic.
Unless you believe that Pet believes he can get another year or two out of McCown.If Johnny Manziel is successful, the Browns chances of success are increased, that is exactly in Pettine's best interest. To think otherwise is just being antagonistic.
And if by some miracle he improves the rest of the team next season he probably could.
WSS
-
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 π
Register Login