at 5, we will hear the Walrus as a member of the Browns for the very first time.

Anyone know who's broadcasting it?

STO? Local channels? or is it just radio?

EDIT: WTAM and WKNR are airing it.

Said he'll make a descision on Mangini on monday when he's meeting with him, said he's been working had and it might be unfair to fire him after one season.

Hiring a GM next year as well.

Repeating again, it's not good to pull someone after one year in terms of something like being a coach or even a quarterback.

Said Mangini sent him some film on Quinn. (he let that slip)

My interpretation of his tone and words and everything is that he' leaning towards keeping EM. Based on language alone I would say it's 50/50.

What do you mean next year?

In a week or in 53 weeks?

In a week. Already has a list put together, but said he can't call anyone for a bit.

Based on the presser I'd say that's about right. He may just be taking the PC road and not throwing Mangini under the bus before the season's over, especially because a lot of the newsie-types have been saying Mangini's gone. But judging from the presser alone it sounded like he'd like to give Mangini another year.

I'm soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo MFing happy to hear that.

Obviously, it doesn't mean said GM will be fantastic and will draft 11 pro-bowlers, but I just learned something about Mike Holmgren, Browns Prez that I didn't know 2 minutes ago.

A huge sigh of relief on that one.

My take is a very open minded guy who will be completely involved in everything. A Carman Policy with real football credentials. A no bs guy who hires a gm and reigns in Mangini

Weird this is by phone.

I go 75 / 25

I haven't heard any newsies say anything. I've heard a lot of useless talking heads decide weeks ago that they can run a football team better than anyone else - even though they're been consistently wrong the last 20 years - and that Mangini would be fired the moment a new guy came in. People who have no idea about offensive schemes insist that Holmgren would never work in a FO that supported a non-WCO offense. People who have no clue about building a team take the comments of someone like Jamal Lewis and generalize that an entire team was revolting.

No newsies but those kinds of people seem to believe that Holmgren would fire Mangini immediately.

OTOH you have actual news people noting that nothing is set in stone. You have people like me notice that it would be stupid of Holmgren to do anything but get a GM in place since he would immediately be 'THE GUY' and wouldn't have anyone to blame if the team went in the shitter next year with his own coach, GM, etc., etc. in place. And Holmgren now has the luxury of having a head coach who knows he is the fall guy if anything goes wrong. You have the connection between him and Weis, a guy who might need a quick leg up to get back in the NFL with a big money deal, through their shared agent. That goes along with the connection between Weis and Mangini.

So Holmgren can be reactionary and start from scratch again or he can please his new boss by keeping the coach Randy hired for at least one more year, get a GM he can trust in place, and have confidence that a HC who's shown he can motivate his players will continue to work hard because Cleveland is almost certainly his last stop as a HC if he doesn't succeed.

Holmgren gets paid no matter what and the money is what brought him to Cleveland. If he can leach off what Mangini has already built and manage to not have to work hard at all to earn his ~50 million dollars then he's not going to work hard. That's why he wanted to get into the FO and out of coaching to begin with.

Blah blah blah Fixed Noise type take RK.

What do YOU take away?

I heard a few "Eric and I believe"s.

That you and Eeyore should have had a shindig weeks ago when I could actually visit.



I don't think he's going to fire Mangini just to fire him. It doesn't make much sense. Hire a GM, see how Mangini does now that his balls have been cut off and his back is against the wall, but insist on a new OC. Let Mangini pick his own OC but insist on Daboll being gone.

If Mangini concedes then Holmgren proves he has the big stick and a malleable coach while still maintaining an easy out next year if the team still blows chunks. If he doesn't concede then Holmgren (and Randy) get to fire him with cause. Best case scenario for Holmgren is he gets to spend time getting plenty of jobs handed out in the Browns FO to guys he knows while he doesn't do much work. He knows his payday was based on his reputation 'healing' the Browns rep in the NFL. Worse case scenario is he has his FO set up next year and can bring in a guy he knows will implement his GB WCO system as a HC and knows that he will have a FO in place that will help attract a big talent rather than a Raheem Morris untried joker.

Then Holmgren sits around and twiddles his thumbs for the next 8 years making 8 figures a year, getting his ego stroked continuously, and still being involved in the NFL world.

Yea after hearing the whole presser I would say thats right.

I just listened to it and my thoughts are opposite.

I think Mangini is toast, it''ll be announced Monday evening, he's gone.

Why Yogi?

I agree with JB. I think Mangini stays and Holmgren and his new GM mitigate the footprint EM has on the org as a whole.

But that might be personal bias as to why I agree that he's staying. I admit I went back and forth while listening trying to get a clue as to what he would do with EM but in the end I think MH thinks Mangini is a bright, hard working dude who's gotten the team to play hard and respond.

I may be way off so I'd like to understand why you think the other way. Something or some way Holmgren responded in particular or just a general feeling that Holmgren doesn't want to start with someone he didn't necessarily want to begin with.

I can see it. Their philosophies are different.

But I don't feel it.

Consider this me hanging up on you.

Its a between the words feel myself. I think the part that caught my ear was when he said (after being questioned on the 3 game win streak) we will evaluate the whole season. He praised Mangini and said it wouldnt be fair to have only one year but I havent made my mind up yet...

Hopefully Holmgren is being honest when he says he hasn't made a decision yet. The Mangini decision is more about who is available and interested in the job than how Mangini did this year.

Keeping Mangini because the team played hard the past three weeks would be foolish if The Jaw wants to be coach/GM here.

Dumping Mangini next Monday and ending up a search with Jim Zorn at coach would be just as foolish.

Well he mentioned having a coaching decision shortly after the regular season ends this Sunday.

So it certainly does look like he's made a decision. If he's going to keep Mangini on, why not announce it now? Why wait until after the season?

While he did seem to be positive towards Mangini, the fact the decision has been made, but he's waiting till after the final game would make me bet Mangini gets fired.

And for the record, I hope I'm wrong, I want Mangini to stay on.

I have been wondering the same thing. The only logical answer I could think of is Holmgren really wants to keep Mangini on. He isnt sure if Mangini will want to stay after he hears the Holmgren plan. So he is going to sit down with Mangini and tell him how its going to be and who goes if Mangini doesnt agree or want a part in Holmgrens new plan he will be shown the door.

FYI for those interested or who want a second shot at the press conference:

I agree. He made it clear he doesn't like the idea of firing someone after only one year and also that he feels a complete "blow-up" isn't needed.

I got the vibe that, although Mangini may not be Holmgren's ideal HC, he does like Mangini and wants to make sure they'll be on the same page (or that he can convince Mangini to join him on HIS page, so to speak) before making a final decision.

Would certainly seem counterintuitive for MH to offer that it might not be the fairest thing to run a HC after only a year if he'd already decided to can him.

That said, when answering the ? about what he learned in Seattle that would bring him more success here, MH intimated that here he would get the right people in place sooner rather than later. Anyone else think that might not be the best sign for Mangini?

I think it will come down to trust in the end, though the point about who would be available to coach is a reasonable aspect.

I am on the Mangenius bus, but I can see where trust might be an issue with Mangini. I do think he is qualified and able to coach sustainable winning football. We are way to quick to jump on the mistakes, than we are to jump on the good, sound moves he has made.

As a fan, I am more than fine, with sitting back and letting MH do his thing. We are in good hands, finally, and he is going to ge shit right, with or without Mangenius IMO.

People are focusing too much on the head coach when their was something else that I heard.

This is the biggest thing I got from the Big Show's PC.

http://morningjournal.com/articles/2009/12/29/sports/mj2086319.txt

Straight from the Big Show's mouth.

Holmgren isn't married to either QB and he's going to evaluate them based on his criteria.

Holmgren didn't hesitate to state just how important the QB is to the success of the team so I think that he will insist on a QB can run his offense and I don't think we have that player on the roster right now.

Quick timeout here, thought this on the drive in this morning...

Walrus says he's going to bring in a GM, check. Wouldn't the traditional order of operations dictate that front office staff is built from the top down? A true President brings in a GM before making a decision on Mangini, and that GM should have a stronger voice and accountability in that decision. What I see as more likely is Holmgren openly diminishing GM on the org chart to the same level of the Head Coach.

Titles are tricky, but they are important organizationally due to the level of accountability each title holds. How he sets things up is important to me as a fan, as this organization has struggled with structure (see Kokinis). If the decision on HC is Holmgren's alone, he should change his title to President/GM. That way the faux GM can concentrate on his real job, picking up Holmgren's dry cleaning and being The Turk.

It's a question of Holmgren's preference of a vertical vs. horizontal hierarchy in Berea. Again, I don't see Whiskers allowing his "GM" to have the same decision making power as they might elsewhere, which should direct his hiring process toward a personell director type, not someone who is responsible for watching over the HC's actions. Why not just name a Director of Personell instead of naming a GM, a title that implies hire/fire power over HC?

I agree that this is a newer structure in a sense, but one I would agree with. I like the setup where a GM does not have hire/fire HC capability in cases where a credible admininstrator oversees both. I don't eniterly see what would qualify alot of GM's to make that decision intellegently anyways. You certainly are not going to be able to convince me that a GM we bring in can better assess the performance of the HC over Holmgren.

I may just need to update my view of what a GM does in the modern game. The role now varies by club, when it used to be more defined. Then again, Holmgren as President is going to be the most hands-on President in the league (again redefining my vision of the title).

I only bring this up because three or four years from now, if we're still a 5-11 team (heaven forbid), it will be easier to mete out the blame if Holmgren has been running a transparent front office from day one. That way, he can't send away a scapegoat from behind a smokescreen of titles and ambiguous roles.

JMHO but, I think he has to identify why this team didn't play as hard out of the gate as it is now and if he determines that its because of Mangini's head games at the start and being force fed youthful legs at the end of a failed season then I say he's toast.

I also think its a stretch to believe that a control freak like Mangini is suddenly going to be a cooperative round little yes man. He'll have to totally remake himself from the lying little back stabber that he is at his core.

I'm not getting how a coaching change sets the team back any either.....its not like they're that far along that it would be an inconvenience, especially when taking into consideration the roster turnover that will take place in 2010 in addition to other coaching changes.

50/50 and while I personally prefer to off the Vaginus, I'll cool with whatever the Walrus chooses.

2 cent

goo goo g'joob

Thanks for your thoughts. But I'm more interested in MH's. He didnt give a clue as to what he thought. He will be evaluating. One we thing all know, both QBs performed worse this year than last. Why?

My gut tells me Mangini is gone. He and Holmgren are both strong willed. They firmly believe that there way is the best way to win. There philosphies are very different. Something has to give, and that something is probably Mangini. I just don't see Mangini changing his belief system to suit his new boss. I love how the team has performed down the stretch, but I don't think it matters. We don't need a HC and team President butting heads on every important decision. I just think this would be a good marriage.

Mangini may step down rather than live under the Walrus' rule. I hope Mangini and Holgrem can happily coexist, but I think it is a very long shot ( 20/80 )

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the cespool attitude players developed over the years not loving the change of not running the asylum anymore. I mean, most coaches can go in and wipe that slate clean in training camp.



Wow, all meat there, certainly no assumptions or conjecture.



This I can agree with, and while I would MUCH prefer they kept Mangini, he has set the table in a very positive way in terms of attitude, roster make up, and draft picks. I do believe that it is as good a situation for an incoming coach as there can be, assuming most coaches like a clean slate to work with. I am just not seeing some shoe in HC to hire who is a clear upgrade.

I don't agree. Mangini knows if he loses this HC job he may not get another one- and if he does get one, it'll likely be under the watchful eye of a front office that checks him on personnel. Certainly he'll never again be in a situation where an owner like Randy just tosses him the keys and tells him to have fun.

My gut tells me Mangini will do whatever he needs to do to keep this gig- especially since the fruits of his labor are starting to be borne out. He doesn't want to midwife this baby then just hand it over to someone else.

What is YOUR take on what Mike Holmgren said here?

I am going to work very, very closely with the coach on personnel. Eric shares my views on how important the quarterback position is for any team. That's what we have to do. We have to be tough in some ways. We have to be honest about it. If we think we have the quarterback there that can take us where we want to go, fine. If we don't, then we have to do something about it.

Do you think when Holmgren says if he doesn't think that he has the QB in place to take us where we want to go that he'll do something about the QB situation or that he won't?

Before you answer note he prefaces that statement by saying 'we have to be tough' .

Do you think he said that becuase he is going to work with any QBs that he doesn't feel will take him where he wants to go?

He said that he is going to make a QB change if he doesn't think we have the guy on our roster and from what I've seen of the past QBs that Holmgren has worked with that he places the highest priority on the QB position.

Joe Montana, Steve Young, Brett Farve, Matt Hassleback, Brady Quinn/Derek Anderson.

Two QBs already in the Hall of Fame, one on his way, another a perrennial Pro bowler, and two journeymen QBs. One of those things is not like the other.

Yogi tell us how you read what Mike Holmgren is saying? Consider Holmgren's NFL QB history and that he was not shy making a move at QB in the past when he felt that he didn't have a guy who could take him to the Superbowl.

Super Bowl, that is what Mike Holmgren has done in the past and that is what he is talking about.

Yogi do you think Quinn fits in with, Montana, Young, Farve, Hassleback? That is the group of NFL QBs that Holmgren has worked with in the past and all of those quarterbacks have the Super Bowl on their resume.

You think that we have a QB that fits in with that group?

Since you are pounding the QB drum so hard...let's assume that DA is gone and Quinn is deemed a backup at best by Holmgren. So what will he likely do?

Holmgren has quite a QB pedigree behind him. Young in SF, Favre in GB, and Hasselbeck in SEA. All three of these guys were traded to the team that Holmgren coached, and I'd assume that at least Favre and Hasselbeck were hand picked by him.

So the Walrus' history suggests he looks around the league and trades for a QB, instead of burning a first rounder on one.

Here were some possibilities from known WCO systems.


SEA? - Holmgren's system. Could Holmgren look to Hasselbeck as his QB of the future? Don't see it. 34 years old and has dropped out of the upper echelon of QBs. What about Seneca Wallace? Possible. His QB rating for the last 3 years is about 90, and he's been in Tuna's system his entire career.

PHI? - Reid is a Holmgren disciple. No way McNabb goes anywhere. Kevin Kolb would be the obvious target for a Tuna makeover. He's young, has decent size, and is well-versed in a west coast offense. But with Vick likely being released, Kolb moves back into the number 2 slot. Vick maybe? Before you scoff, Vick is looking for a starting gig again, and with some exposure to the WCO, he gets a leg up on those that haven't. Running QBs talents are maximized in the WCO. Unfortunately, the Dawg Pound/Vick issues are obvious and daunting, so maybe Tuna doesn't have the balls to make this kind of move. Vick also struggled mightily with the WCO when he was first exposed to it in ATL.

GB? - Assume that GB still runs a version of the WCO. This makes the backup Matt Flynn a possible target. Don't know much about him, but Aaron Rodgers will be the starting QB for the next 10+ years in GB.

MIN? - No. There isn't anyone behind Favre ready to take over a team or they'd be running it right now.


I think Aaron Rodgers is a great example of a prototypical WCO. He led NFL QBs by a wide margin in rushing yardage (314), and has been pretty accurate throwing the ball to the tune of a 64% completion average and 102.4 QB rating. So who is the most like Aaron Rodgers in this years' draft?

I'd guess Colt McCoy, but given Holmgren's history of trading for a QB, I think he looks elsewhere first.

Red, I haven't begun to pound the QB hammer. I'll bring out a jackhammer before Holmgren makes his move but from everything I've seen and heard from Holmgren he's going to make a a bold move at QB so what I'm doing is attempting to prepare those who don't see what is coming.

He started out in SF where he came in to coach Montana but even with a HOF QB that team used a first round pick to trade for Young. In Green Bay the first move he and Wolf made was to trade a first round pick for Farve. Then in Seattle the first move he made was to trade a first round pick for Hassleback. The man is not a mystery and he's not shy about making QB his first and highest priority. I haven't taken a serious look at the QBs from this draft but considering Holmgren's history and previous time lines of getting the QB he wants and how he hasn't been shy about dishing first round picks for QBs, I wouldn't aim so low by thinking that he is looking to trade a mid or low level draft pick for a QB. He may very well be thinking about dishing our first rounder for somebody.

If he traded for Hassleback then it would be a move to buy time. Just like Mangini got Jet players on defense to help incorporate his defensive system, Holmgren would get his veteran QB to help institute his offense and maybe tutor a developmental QB. This is a higly likely possibility IMHO no matter what else transpires because we could get Hassleback at a low cost in terms of draft selections and we're sitting on 11 picks which is too many rookies to bring into a roster so some of those picks will be wasted so I'd be in favor of dishing one for Hassleback.

I don't think Philly is willing to dish their backup even with Vick and McNabb on the roster. I think Ried really likes that kid Kolb and so do I. I'd like to get him but I don't think they would part with him but if Holmgren hires Heckart and Marriuchi then I think that we would definitely make an offer for him that the 'Iggles' couldn't refuse.

Yer ask'n me? I don't know anything about Flynn but I don't want the other backup that they took in the second round.
.
No way on Tavious Jackson but I like the other guy but they just traded for him and I don't think they would let him go.

Could be the guy Mike has a lazy eye on but only if he is able to bring in his guy(s) on offense to tutor the kid. I dunno about the draftees yet. I really haven't gone deep into draft mode but I think Holmgren is getting his ducks huddled and we'll see more but I think QB is high on his agenda.

I really dont know what Holmgren thinks of Quinn, but neither do you. You could read between the lines or read tea leaves , they'd be a guess.

My "guess" at this point is Holmgren doesnt know what he has in Quinn and is gonna spend the next month closely evaluating him. Quinn has all the necessities to be successful at being a WC QB except the accuracy part. Of course thats big, but is it correctable?
Holmgren will be able to judge that, if he gives Quinn a shot or moves on.

DA isn't in the discussion. Everyone knows what he is and isn't.
So to sum up, I dont know what Holmgren is thinking at QB but he'll know what he wants and my take on the HC, is Mangini sleeps with da fishes.

Bob,

You've been pounding the QB drum in every thread you can. If you think this has been subtle, I'd hate to see your full-court press!



Nope. It was a second and a fourth. I assume it was a late second back then as SF was tough every year. Not quite the value of a first rounder, even a late one.




Not quite right here again. Here's the trade, courtesy of Wikipedia.

"The Packers traded him (HASSELBECK), along with their first (17th overall) and seventh-round draft picks, to the Seahawks for their first (10th overall) and third-round draft picks."


Upon further digging, I see that Hasselbeck didn't start out real well in SEA, and actually was supplanted by Dilfer for a while. Sounds like he wanted to be Brett Favre and wasn't real coachable at first.


I think the smart move for Holmgren is to sign the FA QB he likes the best, draft a mid-round QB, and let those two compete with Quinn and Ratliff. Maybe if he's in love with the GB backup Flynn he makes a deal.

Course if he loves a QB that's there for our first rounder, its hard to argue against the move. If the offense is overhauled, its going to nullify much of Quinn's advantage and if the rook is annoited as Holmgren's next chosen one, we hope the other 10 picks are enough to get us back to an 8-8 team IMO.

Is there any other neccesity for a WC QB? Not really....



Setting aside the question of whether he has ENOUGH accuracy, what inaccurate NFL QB have you ever seen drastically improve in the area?



Hasn't this always been your take? Doesn't sound like that has anything at all to do with the press conferance. You called it a read between the lines type feel, but it seems lot more like you ignored the presser completely and stuck with what you aready had thought.

Glad you are not judging QBs.

Reading defense, getting the right call made, audibles, leadership



Eli Manning, Steve Young, there are others Im sure. The question is, is there anything causing the inaccuracy that can be corrected. Every QB has a WTF throw, saw Cutler overthrow a wide open WR last night and he's one of the most accurate in the game.



Yeah, its been my take for the last 2 days, since I heard the press conference. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

Those are the same with any system in the NFL. As far as I understand it, the most important quality BY FAR for a west coast QB is accuracy.

Show me an offensive system where reading defense, getting the right call made, audibles, leadership are not important. And yes you could say the same for accuracy to a degree.

How about this: Name for me a successful WC quarterback who was not extremely accurate? Your assesment would seem to me to be a deal breaker.

As far as Steve Young and Eli Manning, Neither was known as an inaccurate passer coming out of college. Young even set an NCAA record for highest single season completion %.

Lastly, maybe I was mistaking you for another poster, but I thought you have long been of the opinion that Mangini will and should be shitcanned.

Concur.

Mangini's next stop is NCAA D 3 if he fails here.

Depends on what stage in their careers. To various degrees Favre and Young were considered flops by their first teams. Recall Glanville ridiculed Favre as a rookie. Hasselback was a non-descript project, Montana a 3rd round pick.

So yeah, they all started in a dog house of some degree.

I think all Walru's comments reflect is that the QB is not going to be considered a cog, but the centerpiece of the team. Whoever ends up here isn't going to be asked to manage game. He'll be asked to win them.

That may be a little too pessimistic - he may be able to land a MAC job. Isn't Central Michigan open?

edited to add my lost comments..

I would just add that many QBs started out with the mandate of playing within themselves and NOT to lose the game. Then as they grew more comfortable with the speed of thegame, their offense, gaining the confidence of the team and coaching staff, had the responsibilities in the O grow. After a few years they are now the leader of the team.

i.e., Ben, Eli, Rivers, Flacco, etc.

Those are the same with any system in the NFL. As far as I understand it, the most important quality BY FAR for a west coast QB is accuracy.

Show me an offensive system where reading defense, getting the right call made, audibles, leadership are not important. And yes you could say the same for accuracy to a degree.

How about this: Name for me a successful WC quarterback who was not extremely accurate? Your assesment would seem to me to be a deal breaker.

As far as Steve Young and Eli Manning, Neither was known as an inaccurate passer coming out of college. Young even set an NCAA record for highest single season completion %.

Lastly, maybe I was mistaking you for another poster, but I thought you have long been of the opinion that Mangini will and should be shitcanned.

Steve Young struggled I remember, not sure the whens and hows he turned it around but Im sure Holmgren was there and probabaly part of the solution.
I watch the Giants as closely as the Browns, living here in NJ and they are my #2 team. Eli has struggled with accuracy. He's improved but he still has mechanical problems and wtf throws.

But I would tell you that accuracy dont mean squat without proper recognition of the D schemes, hence the problems Cutler has had.
As far as Mangini, I was ok with him being hired and in his corner till the embarrassing losses back to back to the Pack and Bears.
Of course, he's had me re-look at his work the last few weeks, but Im still on the fence to let him go. However, I'm totaly in the corner of Holmgren making it HIS call. I just think Holmgren will let Mangini go from what I heard in the PC.

Agreed. And regardless of the expertise we house here, I'm thinking it'd be worthwhile to judge Quinn's WCO accuracy when he actually plays in a WCO.

And maybe it's not a coincidence that Young went from 53% with TB to 64% for his career in large part because of the WCO. Going from Kevin House and Calvin Magee to Rice, Taylor and Jones and a couple backs who caught tons of balls out of the backfield like Carter and Henderson probably helps the percentage a bit too.

I don't care if Quinn is the guy here or not. I have my doubts and if he goes he goes. But to compare him accuracy-wise with what he's got to work with here from a talent, system and coaching perspective is unfair and shortsighted IMO.

Ahh... I remember when Matt Cassel was accurate last season. Completely lost his accuracy a year later. Wonder why......

Debbie Downer told me to remember that 2011 is looking like a year without NFL football. Much can change between now and then, but would Holmgren really want to get rid of Mangini asap without a top notch replacement when all hell is going to break loose (possibly) with an uncapped 2010 and a lockout in 2011?

The most important Holmgren can do asap is find a good GM and someone who really understands what the end of the current CBA really means.

Maybe it has no bearing on Our Town at the end of 2009. But I think it might.

Sure the NFL won't just re-enact the '87 and '82 seasons?