<![CDATA[So what was the point of bringing in Kruger?]]>If, as it appears to be the case, this was the plan by the FO from the beginning. They didn't get the guy they wanted so they got somebody as a stopgap coach for a year or so. Ok, fine.....so why spend money on free agents that have the likely possibility of not fitting the next coach's plans? We can't exactly trade Kruger now with that contract and the season he's had. Nobody's gonna take a guy for 8m that got 4.5 sacks. I have no idea who the next coach is going to be or what he wants to run, but it's possible alot of guys don't fit that new scheme. Maybe even Mingo doesn't...I dunno. If we go to a 4-3 is Mingo safe? Can he play the 4-3 OLB? This is just a mess. And it just smells like a distinctly cleveland mess. Lockerroom said as much today in the tweets....."this organization is a joke". I'll bet anything that came from DQ and/or JT.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/28021/so-what-was-the-point-of-bringing-in-krugerRSS for NodeFri, 02 Oct 2026 16:54:16 GMTTue, 31 Dec 2013 02:48:05 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to So what was the point of bringing in Kruger? on Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:11:29 GMT]]>

@clevfan4life said:

It's possible alot of guys don't fit that new scheme. Maybe even Mingo doesn't...I dunno. If we go to a 4-3 is Mingo safe? Can he play the 4-3 OLB?

Mingo played 4-3 DE in college, so he'd probably go there, starting opposite Sheard who is also used to it. The front four wouldn't be the problem in a 4-3 scheme change I think, it's the linebackers, which would be an issue even with DQJ, let alone without. It'll probably mean we're stuck with robertson and carder competing for at least one if not two starting LB jobs.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/375652https://brownsboard.com/post/375652Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:11:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to So what was the point of bringing in Kruger? on Tue, 31 Dec 2013 04:13:07 GMT]]>okay so we bring him in to play as an every down LB, is that what he did in blatiwhore?

he has no gas to play every down and gets out run by almost everybody when he's in coverage. how many sacks this year in horton's 3-4? exactly.

does that equal 8 mil a year?

riddle me that batman.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/375604https://brownsboard.com/post/375604Tue, 31 Dec 2013 04:13:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to So what was the point of bringing in Kruger? on Tue, 31 Dec 2013 04:03:20 GMT]]>

@miktoxic said:

krueger only put up big #'s the year before we signed him at it was in garbage time in 3rd down situations. he was never an every down LB.

stoopid all the way around.

Thats way off, he had 4.5 sacks in the post season, and 7 sacks when the points margain was less then 7.

Is there a better down to record a sack than 3rd?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/375601https://brownsboard.com/post/375601Tue, 31 Dec 2013 04:03:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to So what was the point of bringing in Kruger? on Tue, 31 Dec 2013 03:55:59 GMT]]>I mean I dont' hate the way he learned how to stop the run, he was awesome...not 8m awesome, for 8m I want that run stopping and at least 10 sacks. I just don't get bringing in guys built for a system that it looks like they KNEW they were going to scrap a year later. They have no idea what the next guy is going to want to run, but they're gonna tell that guy "hey we're paying this asshole 8m so you better make him work". What kind of shit is that? Just for arguments sake let's say Pete Carrol were considering coming to Cleveland....does Kruger fit his specific Hybrid mode? I think they like those outside guys to run about 240-250...maybe like Mingo with another year or weight training under his belt. But it looks like these assholes here in Cleveland would tell Pete hey you gotta fit in what we got cause we ain't gonna give you time to sign and draft your own guys. What a fucking hot mess.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/375597https://brownsboard.com/post/375597Tue, 31 Dec 2013 03:55:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to So what was the point of bringing in Kruger? on Tue, 31 Dec 2013 03:12:10 GMT]]>krueger only put up big #'s the year before we signed him at it was in garbage time in 3rd down situations. he was never an every down LB.

stoopid all the way around.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/375574https://brownsboard.com/post/375574Tue, 31 Dec 2013 03:12:10 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to So what was the point of bringing in Kruger? on Tue, 31 Dec 2013 03:08:44 GMT]]>Yeah, this touches on the real puzzler. What was the point of hiring Chud in the first place? As I understand it, things went kind of like this:

--Before the Season--

FO: "Hey, Chud, want to be our HC?"

Chud: "Sure, but I can't do anything with the team until I get the players I need, and that's not going to be until the 2014 draft at the earliest."

FO: "Ummm..... okay."

--During the season--

FO (to the general population): "Don't worry about it! This is EXACTLY what we expected to happen. Just trust us. We got this. Seriously, it's fine!"

--After the season--

FO: "Hey, Chud,... you're fired."

Chud: "WHAT?! Why?!"

FO: "What do you mean 'Why'? Your team sucks. We hired you to fix the team, and you didn't."

Chud: "But, I needed time to get my players!"

FO: "So, you're telling us that you could win if you had good players? Lots of people can do that. The point of firing one coach and hiring another is to try to get someone who adds something. Just doing better when you get better players isn't really 'good coaching'."

Chud: "But we agreed that I'd get time and that things were going according to plan!"

FO: "Yeah, ummmm..., we've changed our minds on that and decided to focus on the fact that you haven't improved the team."

I don't get it either, man. I have no idea why they even hired Chud. I guess it could be that they just needed someone to fill the position, but that's pretty shitty. As for Kruger, I've always had my suspicions that he was hired as a way to temporarily quell the fan complaints that the Browns never sign any notable FAs.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/375570https://brownsboard.com/post/375570Tue, 31 Dec 2013 03:08:44 GMT