@the-gipper said:

Well, Shurmur will be given time, whether he deserves it or not. But recall The Walrus's words when he let Mangini go: Quote: "5-11 isn't good enough". No shit Sherlock? Was that just pablum or do you really believe that.

OK, we have to deal with all the brain farts Shurmur has given us this year, but next year he better replace that bag of feces between his ears with an actual brain.

Oh gee, can't wait.

@cantonlegend said:

U moron. The saints are historically one of the worst teams in nfl history and a lot of that had to do with instability just like the browns

However...guys like Jim mora, Jim haslett and Sean payton were all pretty solid and all led their teams to the postseason. Coincidentally they all were also allowed to coach up to at least 5 years a piece.

The issues with haslett came when the saints went from a playoff team to 3-13 and the 2nd pick in the draft but that was after we had already seen the max potential of hasletts team

You can't even judge shurmer or mangini because they weren't given enough time

Well, Shurmur will be given time, whether he deserves it or not. But recall The Walrus's words when he let Mangini go: Quote: "5-11 isn't good enough". No shit Sherlock? Was that just pablum or do you really believe that.

OK, we have to deal with all the brain farts Shurmur has given us this year, but next year he better replace that bag of feces between his ears with an actual brain.

@1-more-season said:

The Saints have had a new coach every 3.3 years through out their history. But, you may not know that you condescending front runner.

Me? A frontrunner?

@1-more-season said:

The Saints have had a new coach every 3.3 years through out their history. But, you may not know that you condescending front runner.

U moron. The saints are historically one of the worst teams in nfl history and a lot of that had to do with instability just like the browns

However...guys like Jim mora, Jim haslett and Sean payton were all pretty solid and all led their teams to the postseason. Coincidentally they all were also allowed to coach up to at least 5 years a piece.

The issues with haslett came when the saints went from a playoff team to 3-13 and the 2nd pick in the draft but that was after we had already seen the max potential of hasletts team

You can't even judge shurmer or mangini because they weren't given enough time

@bob806 said:

Interim coaches:

Dick Modzelewski, coached last game of 1977 against Seattle, after Forrest Gregg (should have kept Gregg for sure)

Jim Shofner, 1-6 with an aging/declining team after Bud Carson

Terry Robiskie- nice guy, but didn't even wear a hat in the snow games-caused brain freezes & clock mismanagement, 1-4, after replacing Butch Davis

The Saints have had a new coach every 3.3 years through out their history. But, you may not know that you condescending front runner.

@the-gipper said:

You can really be goddamn dumb sometimes. The Browns (and Cleveland) won their last title in 1964, when I was 12.

I will turn 60 in January.

Now, given that information do you want to look me in the fucking face and tell me to wait?

The fricking 49ers went from 6-10 last year to a Super Bowl contender this year with a new coach/system.

Why should we not expect the same results?

The Bengals were 4-12 last year and are now fighting for a playoff birth.

Why should we not expect the same?

The Broncos were 4-12 last year and now lead their division.

Why should we not expect the same?

The Detroit Lions were 6-10 last year, now they are 9-5 and expect a playoff birth.

Why should we not expect the same?

The Packers won the Super Bowl last year.

Why should we not expect the same?

You became a Saints fan what? 2-3 years ago? I believe you should now wait until at least the year 2060 for them to even have another shot at a title.

When the year 2060 gets here and you've been waiting do you want some young dumbass to tell you: Just wait, be patient. No. This is what you will probably want to do:

No shit Gipper! I'm tired of waiting! We've waited long enough in this city! The 80s are my best memories of the Browns, and they came up short courtesy of John Elway! I'm so done with the excuses!

I am so sick & tired of watching conservative football. These coaching staffs (of every team) break down film constantly, and come up with punts on 4th & 2 inches, roll-out screens behind the weakest link of the O-line (should I continue?).

If I hear Holmrgen, Heckert, & UnShurmer talk about how they loved their draft, they simply have NO EXCUSES not to ATTACK the opposition in 2012.

hanson said:

Just look at the bungals. They have a asshat of an owner. Their franchise QB walked out on the team and have a mediocre coach. Everyone was saying they would be lucky to win two games. They are now on the verge of making the playoffs. Whats Holmgrems excuse?

Um, he doesn't have AJ Green and Andy Dalton?

As to having a "stable" atmosphere, I loved it when Mike Brown stabilized with Mike Shula for way too long.

@cantonlegend said:

Of course you don't keep a coach forever. That's just dumb

The general rule is that you give a coach 3 years to see progress and 5 years to establish the team as a playoff contender

The browns don't abide by that rule...if they don't win the super bowl in the first 2 seasons they are out

Idiot. Of course they don't have to win the SB. But they do have to show competence. Thee have been clear defined reasons for the release of each of these coaches that goes well beyond just the W-L record. But you have neither the understanding, knowledge nor apparently the ability to grasp these reasons, none of which have a freeking cabbage fart to do with what we fans think:

1. Chris Palmer. He was at best like the 4th choice of the Carmen Policy/Dwight Clark team to run the Browns. Policy never wanted him and as soon as Policy could find a guy who he thought was better Palmer was going to be gone regardless. The team made very little progress in the 2 years he was here so it became easy for Policy to bring in "his guy".....and that guy was:

2. Butch Davis. Davis was here for 3 and a half years. So, what happened in that time: He made some improvements in the team the first year, and the second year was so very promising. The Browns made the playoffs and looked to be going places. But what happened: Al Lerner died and Randy came. Randy didn't get along with Carmen Policy. I think primarily he didn't like the fact that Policy had a piece of the team that Randy felt he didn't deserve. So he bought him out, and with him went Clark. And thus Butch's cheerleaders Policy and Clark were sent packing, but Randy came in without a brain or a plan on how to run the team, so he put Butch in charge of everything. Butch was essentially GM, HC and team Pres. Big mistake. He couldn't handle it. Trying to do all those things he was Not cut out to be doing caused the one thing he could do to suffer: his coaching. His ego also got the better of him....but ultimately his GM ability suffered, his coaching suffered and he literally imploded. In essence, he fired himself. So, what happenned?:

3. Randy brought in a new GM who brought in a new coach: Romeo Crennel. Crennel was here for 4 years FYI, and Phil Savage was brought in at the same time to be GM. Well, that worked for a while, though the first 2 years of Crennel's term were not very productive, but in his third year the team went 10-6, so we thought perhaps we had something. But, then again, both Crennel and Savage simply lost control. Savage lost control of himself, Crennel lost control of his team. The team clearly quit on Crennel. He was a nice fatherly figure, a friend to everyone, a good guy. But, being of that nature, when it came time to exercise control and discipline he didn't have it in him. The team quit, pure, simple. Everyone saw it. He saw it, I saw it, the media saw it, the owner saw it. So you cannot have a guy in there that a team quits on. When it is that obvious, it is just poison. The team didn't want to listen to him and they didn't. They didn't want to play for him and they didn't. Savage had to replace him, so what did Savage do:

4. He brought in Eric Mangini. This move however was more Randy Lerner who spent more of his time in NYC, so he is an NYC buttkisser. But, as soon as Mangini comes in, there is another Butch Davis scenario. Savage is let go. Lerner brings in a guy at GM who doesn't have a clue in George Kokinis who quits after like 2 months, and then the Browns are stuck, again, without a competent GM or Director of Football Operations, so all that falls on Mangini, who, like Davis has to wear all the hats. But unlike Davis, Mangini knows he should not be wearing all the hats, and Lerner, having apparently learned from the Butch fiasco knows it too. So Lerner says he is going to bring in a Czar. A guy with a reputation, a guy with cred. So he hires Holmgrem. And Holmgren, being a former coach, says that Mangini should not be let go arbitrarily, even though Mangini isn't his "guy". Well, of course, the combination didn't work. A Bill Walsh disciple cannot stomach a Bill Parcells disciple. That was like mixing Buddhists and Baptists and they just didn't see eye to eye. So Mangini is let go out of philosophical differences. It had nothing to do with competence, just theory. So now, we have Holmgren who now HAS to bring in one of "His guys":

5. So, he picks Shurmur, a protege of a protege. The only problem is that Holmgren has apparently brought in a boy to do a man's job because the boy is his wife's nephew, or something like that. He is clearly in over his head, and the whole beginning of his tenure is an experiment. Now, of course, the story here is incomplete. Can the Tenderfoot Shurmur overcome his clear raw, green status. So far he has made enough mistakes to last a career. Can he Overcome? Can he really be what Holmgren thinks he can be.

No, Shurmur is not going anywhere. Not yet. Holmgren has his entire reputation staked on this guy. He has gotten his retirement package out of Randy Lerner, the only question is whether or not he will eventually ride off into the sunset in a Cadillac ElDorado with the knowledge that he has done the right thing, or will he ride off on a mule...with his sidekick Sancho Panza Shurmur on a donkey at his side.

Bottom line: Davis had nearly 4 years. Crennel had 4 years. They both caused their own demise. Palmer was never wanted in the first place, and Mangini was a square peg in Holmgren's round hole. These are the reason their tenure's have been so short, not because the fan nilly will want anyone gone just because they had a losing season.

@cantonlegend said:

Of course you don't keep a coach forever. That's just dumb

The general rule is that you give a coach 3 years to see progress and 5 years to establish the team as a playoff contender

The browns don't abide by that rule...if they don't win the super bowl in the first 2 seasons they are out

Who's rule is that? Many teams can a coach before your "5 year plan", not just the Browns.

If a coach isn't a good coach, he doesn't need to be there. Should we have canned some of the coaches in the past as quickly as we did? No. But that doesn't give Shurmur free reign now. What happened in the past has no bearing on how bad of a coach Shurmur is now.

Any one of the Browns teams in the past ten years can beat Shurmur's team, and all of those teams had a lot less talent.

@the-gipper said:

Oh, yea. It is just that fucking easy. Just keep the guy you got forever and ever and everything will be OK. No matter how much they suck swamp water.

There is a reason these guys have been let go. Because they were terrible.

If changing a bad coach is no answer, why, pray tell, is not Jim Haslett stillt he HC of the Saints?

Of course you don't keep a coach forever. That's just dumb

The general rule is that you give a coach 3 years to see progress and 5 years to establish the team as a playoff contender

The browns don't abide by that rule...if they don't win the super bowl in the first 2 seasons they are out

@cantonlegend said:

I'm not as old so I'm less of a fan? Ur as dumb as the rest of the browns fans.

You want to win now...but you've wanted to win now for the past 50 years. If you continue to try something over and over without changing and it continues to fail over and over...maybe ur doing something wrong eh?

The browns can't win now because they don't have the talent to do so. They dont have enough talent to build on this year so don't expect them to be relevant next year either. The point is you have to build a foundation and build around that. You can't just keep bringing in new guy after new guy and expect them to see the same vision the last guy had...the new guy always wants to do things his way

That usually means knockin them back down and starting over again

So? Your answer is to just let the piece of shit stay that is doing a shitty job? Your answer is to keep the same piece of shit that you know sucks instead of going out and trying to get someone in that might just turn out to be pretty good.

Why then did the 49ers bring in Jim Harbaugh instead of keeping Mike Singletary?

Why does any team get rid of their coach, since, after all, your pat answer is for all of these teams to just stand pat?

@cantonlegend said:

Why won't you count interim coaches? If a new guy takes over a team mid season it almost always guarantees a new mentality along with new play calling. That can really hamper a team even more

12 coaches in 47 years is a ton. That's just under 4 years per coach and that's not including interim guys that didn't get to see a full season.

The browns have no stability so they will have no wins...that's how it works

Oh, yea. It is just that fucking easy. Just keep the guy you got forever and ever and everything will be OK. No matter how much they suck swamp water.

There is a reason these guys have been let go. Because they were terrible.

If changing a bad coach is no answer, why, pray tell, is not Jim Haslett stillt he HC of the Saints?

@cantonlegend said:

Why won't you count interim coaches? If a new guy takes over a team mid season it almost always guarantees a new mentality along with new play calling. That can really hamper a team even more

12 coaches in 47 years is a ton. That's just under 4 years per coach and that's not including interim guys that didn't get to see a full season.

The browns have no stability so they will have no wins...that's how it works

Interim coaches:

Dick Modzelewski, coached last game of 1977 against Seattle, after Forrest Gregg (should have kept Gregg for sure)

Jim Shofner, 1-6 with an aging/declining team after Bud Carson

Terry Robiskie- nice guy, but didn't even wear a hat in the snow games-caused brain freezes & clock mismanagement, 1-4, after replacing Butch Davis

@the-gipper said:

I have been supporting my team since I was 10. Like I said, that was 50 years ago.

Call us in about 40 years.

Though I doubt you will still be a Saints fan by then. You will have FRAKed your way onto another teams bandwagon.

I'm not as old so I'm less of a fan? Ur as dumb as the rest of the browns fans.

You want to win now...but you've wanted to win now for the past 50 years. If you continue to try something over and over without changing and it continues to fail over and over...maybe ur doing something wrong eh?

The browns can't win now because they don't have the talent to do so. They dont have enough talent to build on this year so don't expect them to be relevant next year either. The point is you have to build a foundation and build around that. You can't just keep bringing in new guy after new guy and expect them to see the same vision the last guy had...the new guy always wants to do things his way

That usually means knockin them back down and starting over again

@ballpeen said:

Lets see.....Collier was the last winner.

After that I recall Scorich, Gregg, Sam, Marty, Carson, Billy,then Palmer, Butch, Romeo, Mangini, and now Unsurmer.

Yes, it takes time, agreed. We are all getting impatient as hell, it sucks.

Look at the coaches Ballpeen mentions- only a few of them understood that in order to make the playoffs, you have to stop the run & run the ball, knock down/pressure the opposing QB, and beat the division rivals.

Unshurmer appears to me to be a "conservative" offensive coach, and that just doesn't work in the NFL. Marty was our last coach who could put a consistent contender on the field, but he also struggled after Infante departed, because we lost our "attacking" offensive edge. I've seen too many conservative coaches come & go here- does anybody think Unshurmer is going to change, if we do get better skill players?

I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see him changing.

@ballpeen said:

Lets see.....Collier was the last winner.

After that I recall Scorich, Gregg, Sam, Marty, Carson, Billy,then Palmer, Butch, Romeo, Mangini, and now Unsurmer.

So that is 12....I am not counting interim guys like Robiskie etc.

Why won't you count interim coaches? If a new guy takes over a team mid season it almost always guarantees a new mentality along with new play calling. That can really hamper a team even more

12 coaches in 47 years is a ton. That's just under 4 years per coach and that's not including interim guys that didn't get to see a full season.

The browns have no stability so they will have no wins...that's how it works

@cantonlegend said:

47 years with how many coaches? 20+?

thats about 2 years per head coach

i wonder how many QBs have started for the browns in the same amount of time

the article.....which you clearly didnt read.....talks about giving the current organization time to get its people in order. you guys have waited almost 50 years.....whats a few more to help turn things around?

Lets see.....Collier was the last winner.

After that I recall Scorich, Gregg, Sam, Marty, Carson, Billy,then Palmer, Butch, Romeo, Mangini, and now Unsurmer.

So that is 12....I am not counting interim guys like Robiskie etc.

@brownindian said:

Playing Devils advocate for Shurmur -

1. He has never been a HC, so there is going to be a huge learning curve. Fans need patience to see if he can get it right or not.

2. Short offseason for him to implement the system of his choice.

3. No one is tutoring Shurmur, he needs to learn by himself.

4. Bad idea for a rookie HC to also handle OC responsibilities. That just makes life difficult for any rookie HC, let alone a slow one like Shurmur.

5. No great players who they can built around. There are too many B grade talents in the Offense with which the team can do many things.

Anyone can think of more reasons why shurmur should be given time ?

I am not an advocate of letting Shurmur go, as much as I think he is doing a poor job....because it may just be possible that he can improve and be something we think he is not.

On the other hand....a lot of those issues you bring up with him fall clearly on the shoulders of Mike Holmgren. Holmgren is Shurmur's tutor....and it is Holmgren who OKed the plan to go without an OC, and it is Holmgren who is ultimately responsible for the talent acquisition for this team....though I actually think Heckert is doing a pretty decent job in that area.

So, put this as much on Holmgren's head as on Shurmur's.

@cantonlegend said:

Wow what a cranky old bitch

I'd be afraid to say anything to Ur face for fear of you having a heart attack or breaking Ur hip

You're mad because the browns haven't won a title but you support firing coaches and starting over year after year

The browns are constantly rebuilding because after a coach starts putting something together, he gets fired and it all falls apart again.

You listed off 3 teams that played a relatively easy schedule but have been pretty solid over the past 2 seasons

The 49ers have been building their defense for years. The texans have been building for years. The steelers took 43 years to win their first title but they only get a new coach once every 15 years

So yes. Quit bitching all the time and support Ur damn team you little cry baby.

I have been supporting my team since I was 10. Like I said, that was 50 years ago.

Call us in about 40 years.

Though I doubt you will still be a Saints fan by then. You will have FRAKed your way onto another teams bandwagon.