Keep Pettine in Place at Least 1 More Year
-
"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
-
-
OK, Steve...
When we get to the point that you are making up examples (hip hop, etc.) and ignoring points made (drafted QBs told they would not be starters), I'm out.
'Til we meet again...
Well I'd call it a hypothetical. And really since neither of us know anything about what goes on, what's the difference?OK, Steve...
When we get to the point that you are making up examples (hip hop, etc.) and ignoring points made (drafted QBs told they would not be starters), I'm out.
'Til we meet again...
But I don't think I ignored any evidence.
Those guys started within a very few games greeted with a sneering he better learn to be a backup right after being drafted in the first round.
Anyway...
Kind of like getting angry over a ginger vs Mary Ann debate
But a tip of the hat for selecting a cool movie to quote.
β‘
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