Turning over the front office

[bac5665]

In the NFL, continuity wins. There is a certain minimum level of competence you need in your head coach and as long as you have that low level of competence, firing your coach will do more harm than good in any one year. I think that SHUR may actually have that minimum level. Do I think that SHUR can take us to the super bowl? I don't know. Doesn't look that way. But there's a reason that firing the coaches every 2 years hasn't fixed our team.

[motherscratcher]

In the NFL, continuity wins. There is a certain minimum level of competence you need in your head coach and as long as you have that low level of competence, firing your coach will do more harm than good in any one year. I think that SHUR may actually have that minimum level. Do I think that SHUR can take us to the super bowl? I don't know. Doesn't look that way. But there's a reason that firing the coaches every 2 years hasn't fixed our team.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the Browns should stick with Shurmer because it's quite possible that he has a minimum level of competence.

Sign me up.

[bac5665]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in the NFL, there is a catch-22 where you need a good head coach but that you also need to have the same head coach from one year to the next.

I'm saying that if we keep getting better and getting Ws, then firing SHUR isn't necessarily the best plan given the costs of discontinuity. Look at the mediocre head coaches that make the playoffs every year; Tomlin, the Indianapolis coach who was fired last year, the Lions current coach, Mike Smith in ATL, Marvin Luis for God's sake.

I'm saying that crap coaches can get us there and that the cost for changing coaches is high. I don't know yet whether or not to pay that cost. I want to see what happens the rest of the year. But I can honestly see arguments for keeping SHUR around, assuming we keep improving.

[pup]

Head coaches that have long tenures are not good because they have long tenure. They have long tenure because they are good coaches.

If you keep a shitty HC for a longer period of time, all it gets you is a shitty coach for a long time.

[motherscratcher]

I get what you're saying. I'd just answer that by saying that the cost of keeping an incompitant head coach is equally, probably higher, because it delays the inevitable changeover.

If the bandaid has to be pulled off it's best to pull it off quickly.

Admittedly, Shur got very little chance here with the position he was put in. With the lockout, change in ownership, and pretty much being set out on an island by the HMFIC to fend for himself.

But, none of that changes the fact that in 21 games he hasn't really shown anything to make me feel like he's capable of leading the Browns to the Promised Land. And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Not continuity for the sake of continuity.

Who knows. He has the rest of the year. Maybe a light will go off and he'll show it. People change and so do opinions. I'd be happy to change mine. I just think it's unlikely.

[bac5665]

If a change has to be made so be it. I'm just not going to celebrate yet another coaching change. I'm footing for SHUR to figure it out along with the rest of the team.

But Pup, I'm not sure I agree. Marvin Luis and Norv Turner have been around a while now. And I think Cinci is a great example of what I'm saying. A few good drafts and suddenly they are at least a high upside team, even if they aren't there yet. Never mind a head coach that all of their fans hate and one of the worst owners in sports. Lovie Smith in CHI has been around a little while now too.

Bad coaches can stick around and their teams can have success. Do I want to keep a bad coach around just for the heck of it? No. We have two choices, keep SHUR or don't. Both options have benefits and costs. I have no Earthly idea which one balances out better. I don't think anyone on this forum does. I hope Joe Banner will by the end of the season.

But I'm not going to fire SHUR because it's the easier looking option.

[Hikohadon]

Shurmur will have every opportunity to win his way into a job. If he does, bully for him. If he doesn't, no reason to hope he stays - that kind of production can be found anywhere.

[motherscratcher]

If a change has to be made so be it. I'm just not going to celebrate yet another coaching change. I'm footing for SHUR to figure it out along with the rest of the team.

But Pup, I'm not sure I agree. Marvin Luis and Norv Turner have been around a while now. And I think Cinci is a great example of what I'm saying. A few good drafts and suddenly they are at least a high upside team, even if they aren't there yet. Never mind a head coach that all of their fans hate and one of the worst owners in sports. Lovie Smith in CHI has been around a little while now too.

Bad coaches can stick around and their teams can have success. Do I want to keep a bad coach around just for the heck of it? No. We have two choices, keep SHUR or don't. Both options have benefits and costs. I have no Earthly idea which one balances out better. I don't think anyone on this forum does. I hope Joe Banner will by the end of the season.

But I'm not going to fire SHUR because it's the easier looking option.

I think Marvin Lewis and Norv are great examples of what WE'RE saying. Do we really want to be Cincinnatti? I'm not sure I'd call them anything like a high upside team. Hell, I don't think Id trade rosters with them (as much as I'd love AJ).

Those guys are the definition of "continuity for continuity's sake gets you nowhere". And it doesn't get you nowhere fast. It takes a hell of a long time to get to nowhere.

[bac5665]

MS, almost every single sports analyst in the country would, if put in charge of CLE, swap rosters with Cinci without any hesitation. You may be right, but no one outside of a few CLE fans would agree.

Heck, I'd probably make that trade, although I'm not happy about it.

[Hikohadon]

MS, almost every single sports analyst in the country would, if put in charge of CLE, swap rosters with Cinci without any hesitation. You may be right, but no one outside of a few CLE fans would agree.

Heck, I'd probably make that trade, although I'm not happy about it.

Meh. I probably would, but just to get AJ Green. The rest is interchangeable mediocrity.

[motherscratcher]

MS, almost every single sports analyst in the country would, if put in charge of CLE, swap rosters with Cinci without any hesitation. You may be right, but no one outside of a few CLE fans would agree.

Heck, I'd probably make that trade, although I'm not happy about it.

OK, great. Maybe their roster is slightly better. Fantastic. I'll agree with Hiko.

But that's completely beside the point of the discussion. Which is that you are somehow looking at Marvin Lewis and Cincinnatti as some inspirational endpoint that might be achievable if Shurmur has minimal competence and we stay the course.

I guess I'm just hoping that the Browns aspire to something better than to luck into being as good as Kentucky North.

[Gradysmanldy]

MS, almost every single sports analyst in the country would, if put in charge of CLE, swap rosters with Cinci without any hesitation. You may be right, but no one outside of a few CLE fans would agree.

Heck, I'd probably make that trade, although I'm not happy about it.

Absolutely disagree.

I feel like if the rest of the season was Browns vs. Cincy 10 more times, Cleveland would win 6-7. The defense is poop outside of the defensive line, and the offense is poop outside of AJ. I felt like all the Browns had to do Sunday to win was get out of their own way, and they did.....convincingly.....despite stuttering for almost 2 quarters on offense.

Most of their offensive skill players are bleh with bleh upside; at least Cleveland is bleh with youth/upside.

[leadpipe]

Continuity doesn't really win you much.

Being good does. As players and head coach.

The continuity in the NFL is born from being good.

Look at the list of Super Bowl winners. You'll find many teams that have won the thing in their first few years under regimes. And the ones that don't fit this category are manned by hall of fame level coaches.

Give me a good coach in his first year over the continuitous Pat Shurmer lead squad and day of the week.

The NFL is DESIGNED this way.

[Hikohadon]

This has nothing to do with this thread, but was just rewatching the game and they advertised "next week, Ray Lewis and the Ravens face off against the undefeated Texans".

Ah, what a difference a day makes.

[Spin]

Player-wise I think they're making progress.

Heckert is a bust IMO. He chose a spread QB to play in a traditional WCO in the first round. Him and Shurmur are too stuck on that 30-year-old offense, and need to go.

Weeden may be a good NFL QB, but we're not going to see all he can do in a WCO. Like I said in another thread, get him back in the gun, let him SEE the defense, let him make adjustments and audible.

Shurmur must go, and it must be on the morning after the season ender. That would make me a winner in the poll.

[motherscratcher]

Saying we are making progress player wise and then calling Heckert a bust seems contradictory, doesn't it?

[Spin]

He seems to have brought in good players, but not all fit in Shur's Walrus-mandated WCO.

You have to have a plan. Woodie Hayes would not have recruited Brett Favre.

[motherscratcher]

Is there a player besides Weeden that doesn't fit a WCO (and I'm not even sure that's true) that Heckert drafted?

[Gradysmanldy]

Is there a player besides Weeden that doesn't fit a WCO (and I'm not even sure that's true) that Heckert drafted?

I'm not even sure why Weeden is a bad fit; because he's a pocket passer? We're not talking about a guy like DA that doesn't have good touch on the short timing routes.....he's been alright on those, just like he's been alright on everything else.

[Spin]

Heckert is already done as THE player-personnel guy.

Joe Banner has the final say on any trades made this year. Whether he will have final approval on any PP moves from now on, or just until they get "their guy" in at GM/PP, the writing's on the wall.

[pup]

Heckert is already done as THE player-personnel guy.

Joe Banner has the final say on any trades made this year. Whether he will have final approval on any PP moves from now on, or just until they get "their guy" in at GM/PP, the writing's on the wall.

You don't think Mike had "final say" on everything up to this week?

Every MAJOR decision will flow through the boss. You prove yourself to your boss, he is more likely to say yes to whatever you come with, but Pres, CEO...whatever the title is will and SHOULD have that responsibility.

[justmebd]

Heckert is already done as THE player-personnel guy.

Joe Banner has the final say on any trades made this year. Whether he will have final approval on any PP moves from now on, or just until they get "their guy" in at GM/PP, the writing's on the wall.

You don't think Mike had "final say" on everything up to this week?

Every MAJOR decision will flow through the boss. You prove yourself to your boss, he is more likely to say yes to whatever you come with, but Pres, CEO...whatever the title is will and SHOULD have that responsibility.

I think Heckert did have final say before this, unless it involved the QB. That was his job title. Holmgren only ever seemed to get involved when the QB situation came into play.

This makes sense, though, just read a piece on PFT where Florio pointed out you don't want Heckert to make a "splash" move in hopes of saving his job and trading draft picks for players.

This is just affirming who the Head Cheese is.

[Spin]

True, it could just be a short leash for awhile until everyone gets settled in. Banner is a money man, don't think he has any experience valuating talent. Just in negotiating contracts on guys the GM wanted/wanted to keep.

Like my old timer fire chief use to say, "Don't do anything stupid until I get there."

[justmebd]

New thought relevant to this discussion.

I've been speculating the last few weeks Shurmur will quit before Haslem fires him at the end of the year, and the first step toward that scenario may come to pass very, very soon.

It wouldn't surprise me, after the atrocious play-calling in Indy, if Joe Banner sits down with Haslem, who in turn sits down with Heckert to "suggest" SHUR be relieved of any and all playcalling duties.

SHUR obviously can't handle it, and it's one way of cementing to EVERYONE that there now is accountability for failure.

It's not like Childress is going to do worse, and it delays putting Childress or Jauron in as an interim for a few more weeks, although I obviously believe it still could happen.

[googleeph2]

Nah. Shurmur will need to be fired for him to go away. He has his future to think about.

He has no real history to lean on, a la Butch Davis. I have Friday, 1/4/13 in the pool. I like my chances.

If the Browns start getting toyed with every week, it would be another matter. They have been in every game except vs. the Giants.

[Spin]

IF the new bosses DEMAND he turn over play calling, would Shur do it or walk?

I would love to play him in Madden...