@miktoxic said:

so which fans are you bitching about? the ones that said give mangini a chance to implement his system and bring in players via draft and FA to fulfill his plans and are pissed because the new president of the browns just tossed all the foundation he had laid out the window?

or about the fans who got their way and have an undying belief that this fat big moustached blow-hard who after hiring his pals will turn this around in as much or little time than the previous guy?

don't come in here and tell people how to feel. you say relax let's give it a chance, well did you give the other guy a chance with only two years? i bet not. so go F yourself if you don't think some of us are pissed and won' continue to be so. so now what do you want to give holmgren more time to prove himself or does he have the time limit you gave mangini?

riddle me that batman.

Someone needs a hug, don't they?

@earl34 said:

He figured out how to work with Big Baby, didn't he?

I am a Mangini guy, even though I think he had to go. But worked what with Big Baby? Are you referring to the inability to unload his contract while he was hurt? Or are you talking about how for 2 quarters in all of 2010 he got some work out of Rogers? For all his good traits, Mangini didn't work well with others if they had talent.

Scoring Defense:

PIT (1)

GB (2)

CHI (4)

NYJ (6)

QBR:

GB (3)

PIT (5)

CHI (16)

NYJ (27)

The top 2 scoring defenses are still alive, every team in the playoffs is a top 10 Scoring Defense, and as you can see we have some bottom feeding QBR teams still alive and well.

QBR is the most important factor for success? Doesn't seem logical, does it?

I take it some people really don't believe that Holmgren is going to let his coaches coach, and not interfere with any of the playcalling or other aspects of the team. Sure he is there as a very important and valuable sounding board and mentor. But to think he is wired in on gameday is the exact opposite of what he stated is his plan. But I guess some of you know better than Mike.

@the-gipper said:

WTF makes you think that all these moves were made by Mangini?

If you are so damn smart, why are you not an NFL HC or GM?

LMAO! Gipper come on now, I have seen lists of players posters have said Eric brought to the JETS, yet he didn't run those drafts the GM did. Then I am supposed to believe that the hand picked GM Eric brought here did all the dirty work? You have got to be kidding me. Eric was a genius in New York with their draft, but suddenly he is not responsible for the shit players he acquired here on his own accord?

Give me a fooking break. He doesn't and shouldn't shoulder all the blame, but most of these moves were for Jets players. And the compensation we received was WAY below market value.

Mangini trades with one team, sends high value for low return, and I am supposed to blame the handpicked BAL GM? You are seriously trying to sell this to me?

You're better than that.

@bringbackbrownie2 said:

Don't start blaming Mangini for our talent problems either. He did what he could with what he was given.

Whatever you're smoking, I want some. Mangini stocked this roster with ST's players, not good backups, because ST's players are fringe players and will buy into your system. He got rid of more talent than he brought in, he drafted like crap, he traded the #5 overall pick to his former team for players that team would consider 2nd string, he traded our #1 WR (#3 pick overall) for Trusnik, Stuckey and 3rd & 5th round picks, he dropped Don Carey, he started Lewis over Harrison and Wright over Haden, and to top it all off he couldn't manage QB's. He did what he could with what he was given? He gave it all away, dude.

@miktoxic said:

the difference between a winning franchise is stability in the coaching staff AFTER they've implemented their system, got rid of cancerous players and drafted their own for at least two years thereafter. which means these fans that want things turned around in two years are dreaming. and don't qualify the teams that have new coaches who have drafted top five every year for ten years or whose previous coach has left the new guy a team that just needs one position to win. that would be saying (if shurmur wins next year) THANKS MANGINI!!!![/b]

You are completely and utterly full of shit, dude. We had Butch Davis here for how long? We had RAC here for how long? Yeah look it up - 4 years a piece. So AFTER we let them build their team and gave them 2 years to do it, they began to suck, the team sucked, and the future looked gloomy. Holmgren comes in, takes a look at the staff Mangini has here and decides that the Mangini way is not the way Holmgren builds a winner. Now forgive me but what track record does Mangini have to go on? And what track record does Holmgren have to go on?

Yeah that's right. Holmgren has turned around 2 franchises and taken both to the Super Bowl.

2 years my ass. We gave coaches time and they kept screwing it up. For once we decided to hire a guy who knows the NFL, and his decision was to move on after 12 months of observing Eric Mangini and how his staff prepares the team.

It should not take 4 years to determine if the team is going in the right direction. Holmgren was hired to make the determination BEFORE we got to the end of the road with Mangini.

But sure by all means, you're right. We don't give coaches 4 years around here.

@wrrebel said:

I feel really good.. mangini is gone... I have ben singing for the last ten days "ding dong the witch is dead"

You've lost it. In the real world you've lost any respect any coach like Gruden would have for every coach. Did you read his book? I did, and he certainly wouldn't back you up on this kind of thinking.

Coaching in the NFL is hard.

Playing in the NFL is hard.

Posting smack on a football board -- not so much.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

When you receive millions of dollars, you say favorable things.

Bullshit! Eric Mangini has been and continues to be a First Class person, and a great guy. To think he is saying anything just because he is getting paid? He could say nothing at all and still get paid his millions-- he doesn't have utter to one word at all. He chooses to be first class.

@kshutchins said:

The reason I brought it up was all of the grumbling over various prospective coaches and how conservative (boring) their offenses were likely to be. It sounded to me like quite a few people care a lot about that sort of thing.

It is a cool thread and a great question. I don't want an offense that right off the bat is boring or conservative. However I have heard a few members talk about how our players were just plain poor ballers, and it was not Daboll's fault we were boring. Chicken or the Egg?

QUOTE (Formerly Stone @ Jan 12 2011, 08:59 PM) *

Right in my mind, this board is simply a source of entertainment. Face it, most of the Browns posters here are delusional, bitter, jealous, and down right pissed off at the rest of the football world when in fact it's the Cleveland Browns who make you that way!

LMMFAO! Of all the places you could spend your free time, you choose to spend it here amongst the people you can relate to the most.

A result of statistical factors? You mean POINTS ALLOWED? Because that is how those teams are ranked. That is not a result of anything BUT one ranking - how many points did your team give up? It is about as pure a ranking regarding making the playoffs as we can find.

It is not a result of anything but stopping the team from scoring.

Now QBR on the other hand is just the opposite. It is a complicated compilation of a bunch of different statistics, including YPA, Sacks, INTS, and if the guy got laid the night before.

I know what you tried to do right there, but no dude. No.

@shepwrite said:

As far as raw passing yardage:

Five teams rank in the bottom half of pass yardage: Seattle, Baltimore, NYJ, Chicago, and Kansas City. I personally expect to see Seattle, the Jets, and KC out after round one. Baltimore will beat KC... not sure who Chicago plays.

Indy, New Orleans, and Green Bay rank 1-3-5. They were three of the worst rushing teams. Interesting to watch how that plays out.

Otherwise, you have these "top half" teams...

9 - Phil

11 - NE

14 - Pitt

15 - ATL

DEFENSE baby. DEFENSE!

12 playoff teams and their ranking in QBR:

NE1

GB 3

PHI 4

PIT 5

BAL 7

KC 8

IND 9

ATL 11

NO 12

CHI 16

JETS 27

SEA 28

12 Playoffs teams and their ranking in Scoring DEF:

Pitt 1

GB 2

BAL 3

CHI 4

ATL 5

JETS 6

NO 7

NE 8

KC 11

PHI 21

IND 23

SEA 25

I see more of the bottom feeders in QBR still alive, and more of the bottom feeders in Scoring DEF home right now. 3 of the top 10 teams in QBR are out now and they happen to have lower DEF rankings. Just keeping a running tally.

I don't think anyone who is a fan of the Cleveland Browns would care if they were boring and wore pink tutu's. Winning is winning.

Question is can you build a team and win with no passing game? In this day and age, you have to pass the ball well and have a stud defense. Passing isn't boring.

Oh sure we could talk all day about the Baltimore Ravens, but after mediocre years, they're knocking back on the door again with a QB who can pass.

Would I take boring football and a winner? Of course. Is that realistically going to happen? I don't think so.

@cddbrowns said:

Holy bloody hell, you spin EVERYTHING into a negative with Mangini dont you?

Mangini just got axed by his 2nd organization in his 2nd season - again. There is a lot of negatives.

Sure, none of this is his fault.

@cddbrowns said:

Wallace = 1-4. Jake = 2-2.........

I hear a lot of bitching about Mangini while not taking into consideration that HOLMGREN brought Wallace and Delhomme to the team, and Delhomme was paid HOW MUCH to be the starter? By WHOM?

Give me a break, every bad thing you guys nailed on mangini, every good thing, you gave to everyone else. Learn where to actually put the blame.....

Oh I see what you're saying --- it was HOLMGREN's fault that Mangini played Jake above Wallace. Hmm, more Mangini excuses? No thanks, I am full.

Time and again Mangini tossed players to the side because they did not play ST's, so in this regard he stocked his "depth" not with players who were good backups or position players, but with guys who played good ST's. His depth on this football team was his own doing, and not something Heckert could undo in one offseason. So yeah, depth on both sides of the ball was Mangini wanting ST's players, not good position players.

@cddbrowns said:

Delhomme, nuff said....

What does Jake have to do with Mangini stocking his roster with mediocre, average, ST's guys who have nowhere else to go, and nothing better to do than to buy into his system?

@cddbrowns said:

Delhomme, nuff said....

Than why was Delhomme playing QB for this team? Was it because Wallace wasn't one of Mangini's guys? Are you seriously going to tell me that Jake was a better option over Wallace? That is like Lewis last season playing over Harrison until he got hurt, and Wright playing over Haden until he got hurt.

I hear excuses for Mangini. Lots and lots of excuses.

@cddbrowns said:

Who wanted Hillis? Hmmm?

And Heckert made it happen. Look who took out Hillis in the first game vs TB. We didn't do much without him did we? So instead of sticking with the guy and giving him some confidence, you bench him in the first game. Mangini mishandled a lot of players on game day (or making them inactive.)

But sure, I give props to Eric for getting Heckert to grab him. +1 to Mangini.