Mangenius Interrupted: An Institutional Failure in Five Acts (Vol. II)

by Cleveland Frowns on January 5, 2011

Volume I including Acts I and II is available here. Act III picks up with Mike Holmgren having risen in Cleveland from the ashes of the historically incompetent Randy Lerner’s overreaction to a self-interested stunt on the part of one uniquely-positioned publicity hound, “Dawg Pound Mike” Randall:

ACT III: Cleveland Lays Down the Palms for The Big Show

Having been handed the keys to the kingdom by Lerner, Holmgren was received as a messiah in Cleveland. A Super Bowl appearance in Seattle and a Super Bowl ring earned 15 years before (with the help of each of one of the best GMs, quarterbacks, and defensive players in NFL history,* among others) were plenty for a Cleveland press starved for a brand name in Brownstown. Accounts of Holmgren’s first press conferences in Cleveland are uniformly laden with references to “The Big Show’s” charisma. He was a star. Not a single member of the mainstream media questioned Lerner’s decision. Questions about why Holmgren had worn out his welcome as GM and then head coach after ten seasons in Seattle weren’t so much as suggested, let alone discussed, even as Holmgren’s successor in Seattle, Jim Mora, was making news by publicly criticizing his Seahawks (Holmgren’s for the preceding decade) for their league-wide reputation for “softness.”

While some members of the press — mostly those with a special interest in avoiding further embarrassment by way their own incredibly early 2009 calls for Mangini’s head — practically begged for Holmgren to can the head coach, most took an even easier road, the one by which there was simply no right and wrong with respect to Mangini’s future. Whatever Holmgren decided would be fine. More incredibly, the “Fire Mangini” and “In Holmgren We Trust” camps were the only two camps represented in the local media, with one exception. ESPN Cleveland WKNR’s Je’Rod Cherry, former Patriots defensive back who won three Super Bowls with Mangini in New England, was the only mainstream voice to put forward an argument that keeping the Coach was the right thing to do (the closest anyone else came to crossing this line was Terry Pluto here and here).

Yet by the end of the 2009 season, the four-game win streak (the franchise’s longest in sixteen years) had made it much harder to argue that Mangini, after one season, wasn’t doing as well as anyone could have been expected to do in reversing the course of a franchise in a state of historic disrepair. When he arrived in Cleveland, Mangini cut 27 players (42% of the active roster), only one of whom had more than 3 starts NFL in 2010, and only two of whom were on active NFL rosters by 2011. Just weeks earlier, Steve Kelley wrote in the Seattle Times that “The Marshall Plan was easier to execute than the plan that’s needed to fix the Cleveland Browns.”

To get around the difficulty in explaining why one of “Holmgren’s guys” should be expected to be better than a coach already in place who was making discernible progress at an exceedingly difficult job, many suggested that “philosophical differences” between Holmgren and Mangini offered justification for firing the coach.

The idea of irreconcilable philosophical differences between Holmgren and Mangini raised difficult questions as well; including about why one man’s philosophy was necessarily superior to the other’s, especially in Cleveland, and most interestingly, why experts in distinct useful philosophies wouldn’t benefit from working together at the ever-evolving philosophizing that success in the NFL requires. Holmgren addressed these concerns in a 1/5/10 press conference by expressly rejecting the notion of mutually exclusive football philosophies:

“All I care about is for organization to win . . . If you play 3-4 and I’m a four-man line guy or if you run the spread and I’m a west coast guy, I don’t care. I always thought it was a little funny . . . [“West coast offense”] was a term, with all due respect, I thought it was a lazy term you guys use sometimes. I took at what I learned. I go wherever I go and I’m doing my thing adding this or that. . . Unless you’re running the Wildcat you see a lot of similarities in offenses. . . . I wouldn’t get too bogged down in that.”

Two days later, on January 7, Holmgren announced that Mangini would return as head coach of the Browns for the 2010 season. On January 11, Holmgren hired Eagles GM Tom Heckert to fill the same role in Cleveland, and announced at a press conference one day later that the three were “in it for the long haul.”

“It was my charge by our owner to find the best people I can find for these positions,” Holmgren said, “and then define their roles and let’s go. I believe in that. I just believe they know they’re going to get this job done. I don’t think this is business as usual. Take me out of the equation. We will not continue to have these kind of press conferences, I don’t believe. We’re all in it for the long haul. I’m gonna make sure they all play nicely with one another. That’s my job. But I believe in them.”

Mangini was optimistic as well:

“To be able to work with [Holmgren] and learn from him and just be able to spend time sharing ideas and all those things. It’s a unique situation for any coach and any head coach. . . . I think things are very bright for us. I think this is a real fantastic situation for me personally and for us organizationally. It’s unique. And I’m happy to be part of it.”

But a dimmer view held that Holmgren had given Mangini just enough rope with which to hang himself. Folks who saw 2010 Mangini as Dead Coach Walking from the start took literally the limiting clause in Holmgren’s statement that “Mangini will return as Browns head coach in 2010,” seeing Holmgren’s decision as little more than his taking advantage of a no-lose situation. With no quarterback in sight, and critical holes at every other position group, the Browns were at best a year away from serious playoff contention by any reasonable projection.

On the eve of 2010 training camp, Tony Grossi penned a 1,400-word column on “Five Key Storylines as the Browns open [camp]”  Three of Grossi’s five key storylines directly implicated Mangini’s job security, including one directly questioning “Mangini’s future,” as well as narratives relating to the possibility of Holmgren returning to coaching, and potential friction between Mangini and Heckert. The name “Cribbs” didn’t appear in the column even once. Nor did the name of a single defensive player.

———-

We’ll pick up with Act IV later this week (or maybe Monday).

UPDATE: Or maybe never. This from Clark Judge of CBS and our season preview for the 2012 Browns will do well enough for Act IV.

Per Judge:

Mangini did what he was supposed to do, which was to lay a foundation for the future and return the Browns to respectability. I don’t care that they were 5-11 this season. I care that he took a team that didn’t have an abundance of talent but did have an abundance of injuries, as well as the NFL’s toughest schedule, and made it a factor.

I’m serious. The Browns were the last team to beat New England. They clobbered defending Super Bowl champion New Orleans in New Orleans. They beat defending AFC North champion Cincinnati, ending a streak of eight straight division wins. They should have beaten Tampa Bay and the New York Jets. They could have beaten Kansas City and Baltimore and Atlanta and Jacksonville.

I know they didn’t. They also didn’t have the players or the talent those clubs did, with Mangini forced to play half the season with his third-string quarterback, rookie Colt McCoy, and without defensive captains Scott Fujita and Robaire Smith.

So injuries happen. They happened in all the wrong places for Cleveland, and they doomed the head coach. Look, I don’t know that Mangini would’ve made it had he beaten Buffalo and Cincinnati or not gotten hammered by Pittsburgh at home in the season finale. But I do know that he didn’t have a chance once he couldn’t steer clear of those defeats.

That’s supposed to be OK because that’s life in the NFL. But it shouldn’t be OK for Mangini because he did what he was supposed to do — put the Cleveland Browns back on the map. Yes, you would have liked him to win more, but he made the Browns something they were not, which was relevant — and if you don’t believe me, ask the Patriots.

And the Final Act: “Where to for playoff tickets? Mike Holmgren out as Browns President.”

———-

*Ron Wolf, Brett Favre, Reggie White.

  • http://twitter.com/technivore Matthew Rich

    So the 4 game winning streak to close the 2009 season is a mark in Mangini’s favor, but the corresponding losing streak in 2010 doesn’t count against him?

    Frowner I love that you’re creating this space for well-reasoned debate about the Browns but I have to join in with the other folks that say you’re losing credibility by becoming almost a mirror image of Grossi.

    While I am still not 100% sold on Holmgren, simply because I didn’t closely follow any of the teams he formerly ran, he does have enough of a proven track record and reputation throughout the league for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the arguments you muster against him — or at least, against blindly trusting him — here are simply quotes likely taken out of context from other “league sources”, your perception of the limited remarks he’s given to the public & the media, and frank speculation.

    I definitely was a big Mangini fan and supporter. In fact I honestly wish I could have the chance to shake his hand and thank him for what he’s done for the Browns. But the fact is NFL coaches get fired, it is simply part of the job. No injustice has been done to him. And what’s more, no more detailed explanation for the firing was ever likely or even possible, given the respect that Mangini obviously commanded from Holmgren.

    I’m simply waiting to see what Holmgren does next before I start forming any more conclusions.

    • Anonymous

      “the 4 game winning streak to close the 2009 season is a mark in Mangini’s favor, but the corresponding losing streak in 2010 doesn’t count against him?”

      Thanks, Matt, but I never stated that Mangini needed that four game win streak to keep his job last season. The streak just made it harder to fire him. The circumstances in which the two streaks occured are dramatically different.

      If you want to call me a mirror image of Grossi, at least be decent enough to point out the facts that I’m failing to consider or the questions that I’m failing to ask. I understand what the team’s record has been, and have a very clear idea of how to account for it. The only thing you seem to suggest here is that I’m not trusting Holmgren’s “track record” and “reputation” enough.

      So all I can do is say it again: The only reason Holmgren gave us for firing the Coach was that he didn’t win enough with this ragtag injury-ravaged bunch. Holmgren says this without any elaboration, without any explanation as to why he can be sure the guy he’ll bring in would have done better, or why that shouldn’t matter. This is impossible for me to understand, and impossible for me to not be skeptical of, despite any track record. This is especially so when on the other side of all it, I see a young talented bright football coach, a good guy, who’d been making significant progress at an exceedingly difficult task.

      And you know, history is full of people who traded on a track record to gain power that they went on to abuse.

      I’m not saying it can’t or won’t work out. I’m just bringing up legitimate questions about how this all went down.

      • http://twitter.com/technivore Matthew Rich

        I guess what I’m saying here is two things. First, you seem to be making this a black and white issue where you allow no legitimate basis for Mangini’s having been fired, so the only motivations Holmgren could possibly have are suspect. IE, “because Holmgren won’t go into highly specific detail about why he fired Mangini with the press, he therefore has perpetrated a screw job on Mangini and all Browns fans.” I just think Holmgren is simply never going to publicly state what his reasons are for the firing — which I’m ok with by the way, I don’t really want them to be a front office that publicly airs their laundry after a firing — and so you are choosing to read what you want to into the situation.

        Second, using stuff like the Mora/Singletary/Seahawks-are-soft link to support your case is IMO beneath you. That’s playground name calling stuff that goes on all the time between teams and means nothing.

        I mean, I want to state that I am not sold on Holmgren (although like Art Vandelay below, I think Heckert is the guy we need to really trust, and frankly I do trust him more at this point) and I think the blind Holmgren love a lot of Browns fans display is unwarranted to say the least. But trafficking in 3rd hand quotes isn’t the way to go about opening people’s eyes.

        • Anonymous

          One at a time here, Matt:

          1.) “you seem to be making this a black and white issue where you allow no legitimate basis for Mangini’s having been fired.”

          Let me repeat again, then: “I’m not saying it can’t or won’t work out. I’m just bringing up legitimate questions about how this all went down.”

          —

          2.) “I just think Holmgren is simply never going to publicly state what his reasons are for the firing — which I’m ok with by the way, I don’t really want them to be a front office that publicly airs their laundry after a firing — and so you are choosing to read what you want to into the situation.”

          Maybe we’re different, but I want to be able to understand why leaders of public institutions make the decisions that they do, especially the biggest decisions.

          http://bit.ly/hFzrea

          Will plead guilty to reading what I want to into the situation, which I’ll submit is the most reasonable thing I can read. I introduced this thing by begging for another better reading. Where is it? All you’ve got for me so far is that Holmgren’s got a “track record.” With Brett Favre, Ron Wolf, Reggie White. Or in the worst division in recent NFL history.

          —

          3.) “using stuff like the Mora/Singletary/Seahawks-are-soft link to support your case is IMO beneath you. That’s playground name calling stuff that goes on all the time between teams and means nothing.”

          Where’s the last time an NFL coach called out his own team for being a league laughingstock for “softness”? Maybe reasonable minds can disagree, but I happen to think it’s a remarkable spot of history. Especially interesting in that just about everyone who walked off the field against the 2010 Browns went on the record to say the exact opposite of them.

          • http://twitter.com/technivore Matthew Rich

            1.) “I introduced this thing by begging for another better reading. Where is it?”

            The point is that it isn’t there one way or another. The answers you’re looking for aren’t going to be found in that or any press conference Holmgren gives. And I guess we just disagree that the Browns are a “public institution”. Definitely there’s an element of public trust there, but they are after all a privately held concern in direct competition with other football clubs for scarce resources, including coaching talent. Which might be harder to come by if Holmgren publicly criticizes Mangini at the level of detail you’re asking for.

            2.) ‘Where’s the last time an NFL coach called out his own team for being a league laughingstock for “softness”?’

            I read that article differently, that Mora is calling out one or two players in particular to motivate them after getting their asses kicked. No way those cherry picked quotes from Mora about a couple of specific players, or at least their O-line in general, reflects poorly on Holmgren.

          • Anonymous

            1.) So there are secret reasons that only Holmgren and others in the ivory tower can see or understand, and if Holmgren shared these reasons, other worthy candidates would be worried that they would fail in the same way and be similarly exposed?

            So you’re saying that I’m wrong to want to know what the Illuminati Memo says?

            I guess reasonable folks can disagree on that . . . ? But by any technical definition, you’re going out of your way to absolve Holmgren of accountability.

            2.) Mora told the whole world that other NFL coaches laugh at his team for being soft. It’s an interesting idea that the team Holmgren coached for a decade doesn’t reflect on him at all in the year after he left. Again, going out of your way . . .

          • http://twitter.com/technivore Matthew Rich

            When Byron Scott calls out JJ Hickson for being lazy, does that mean it’s Mike Brown and Danny Ferry’s fault that JJ Hickson is lazy? Or does it just mean that he’s trying to motivate JJ Hickson?

            I’ve read that article like 5 times now and I still don’t see the part where Mora directly says the Seahawks are soft. Mora says he heard Singletary said they were soft, and then he says that’s OK for Singletary to say because that’s a standard motivational sort of thing coaches say to their players about other teams. And then later in the article he calls out one specific player. I really don’t think I’m the one going out of my way to read something into this particular article.

          • Other Dave

            Silly. Holmgren wants a coach with a different philosophy (reasonable to think its largely about the offensive side of the ball). However, if Mangini’s approach had produced spectacular results, Holmgren would have kept him. The results weren’t spectacular, and he didn’t.

            This is why it wasn’t just Grossi (not going to defend that guy), but many national sports outlets speculating about Mangini’s firing. It’s why so many people were not surprised.

            That’s it. That’s the simple answer. It’s consistent with what Holmgren has said, and it’s no surprise that he won’t go into detail about which schemes he didn’t like, or what formation might have worked better.

            Peter, I assume you don’t accept it because you saw spectacular results. Results so spectacular that you not only disagree with the above reasoning, you can’t even comprehend that this could be Holmgren’s thinking.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t accept it because there’s no reason to accept that anyone would have achieved spectacular results with any philosophy with this group.

            And how is it consistent with what Holmgren said when, as noted above, he went out of his way to say the exact opposite.

          • Other Dave

            He said that the wins matter and the system matters, though he’s not going to force the WCO on a coach. He also recognized that there was improvement, but the bottom line is that you and Holmgren have very different views of what this team was (and, I’d guess, is) capable of.

            I really think that’s the sum of it — and all the blather about Holgrem trying to screw over Mangini, or set up himself as the savior, or help out LaMonte, or some other secretive agenda, is noise.

          • Anonymous

            “The bottom line is that you and Holmgren have very different views of what this team was (and, I’d guess, is) capable of.”

            Right, and the line below that is that my view of what this team was capable of makes sense, and Holmgren’s doesn’t, not least because he hasn’t tried to explain it.

            Where’d he point out that “system matters”?

            Also, re: “trying to screw over, or set up himself as savior, or help out LaMonte,” self interest operates at a much subtler level than you seem to be suggesting here.

          • Other Dave

            He said it’s going to be a consideration in the coach he chooses, adding all the caveats about not restricting it to the WCO or one particular system.

          • Tim Flannery

            I think the hiring and firing of the head coach is a decision Holmgren was hired to make, and it would be irresponsible to discuss the pros and cons in a public forum. He likely had the conversation with Lerner and with others, but I believe it would be inappropriate for Holmgren to discuss his reasons publicly, the same way I wouldn’t want my bosses issuing a press release announcing my firing and the detailed reasons why.

            As far as your point on accountability, Holmgren fired Mangini saying that the team did not win enough. Now that he has pulled the trigger, it is Holmgren’s responsibility to hire a coach that can win more. I can only speak for myself, but if the Browns finish 5-11 in 2011, I will certainly be at least as upset with Holmgren as I will with the coach, whoever he is. Holmgren’s accountability for the win-loss record just increased dramatically, IMO.

            Just my two cents.

      • Bryan

        Frowns,

        I think many of the people in this comment section support Mangini, but see your arguments as one-sided. For example:

        When you defend Mangini, you are very careful to analyze and assess every contingency that could have compromised Mangini’s ability to be successful (injuries, talent, schedule, etc….).

        Yet when you criticize Holmgren, you take a very literal interpretation of his press conference, make no attempt to read between the lines, and make no effort to give him the benefit of the doubt.

        This disparate treatment of Mangini’s and Holmgren’s action undermines your goal of being an objective advocate for what is best for the Browns. Objectively, it is not reasonable to mistrust Holmgren based simply on his use of diplomatic mediaspeak at his presser yesterday. The dude was holding a presser for a bunch of morons in the Cleveland media…. Of course he is going to be a bit evasive.

        • Anonymous

          If you could point out one contingency that I’m failing to consider with Holmgren, I’d appreciate it. Or is it his “track record”?

      • Malcolm Mathers

        Frownie said: “If you want to call me a mirror image of Grossi, at least be decent enough to point out the facts that I’m failing to consider or the questions that I’m failing to ask.”

        While I think there is a distinct difference between Grossi, whose dislike for Mangini precluded any rational conclusion about the man(an assumption by you that Grossi ever had a “rational conclusion”), and you, who in my opinion has left the realm of stark rationalism and entered into religious dogma, the similarities are ironic.

        You claim that as a result of the meeting with Dawgpound Mike Lerner fired George Kokinis and he emerged from the meeting saying the Browns needed a “strong, credible leader.”

        Frownie said “……Yet still, Lerner emerged from a preliminary meeting with Randall promising to hire a “strong, credible, serious leader” to help run the Cleveland Browns, thereby casting Mangini’s immediate future in serious doubt, ”

        First of all your facts seem to be off. The strong, credible leader statement was said on November 1, 2009 in a e-mail interview with the press (http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_browns_owner_randy_l.html), before the meeting with Dawgpound Mike on November 3.

        Isn’t it plausible that with the whole Kokinis thing unraveling (he was fired the next day) that the need for a strong,credible leader wasn’t caused by two random losers but instead by the fact that the G.M. who was handpicked by Mangini was at best just not cutting it and at worst way over his head?

        Indeed, when asked “You had the opportunity to appoint someone in that position in January but you chose not to. Why?”, Lerner answered “In regards to why I didn’t hire that person in January, the answer is that I expected the GM to evolve into that role.”

        Keep in mind at this point Randy Lerner understood the nature of the undertaking that Mangini and company were embarking on, brought out in this exchange from the same interview;

        “Q: Looking back at it, were there any signs early on that this season could spin out of control like it has?

        Lerner: It seems to me that the 4-12 record in 2008 and the fact that we won 24 of 64 games (37.5 percent) over the previous four seasons, combined with our record in the draft and free agency, were the early signs that it would be very challenging season for our new staff.”

        Got that? So what we have here is a owner who all along understood that he needed a strong, credible leader, probably because he knew how hard a job it was going to be for Mangini-Kokinis, and trusted that the G.M. that the coach he fell in love with would develop into that role. I don’t think it’s crazy to assume that Mangini was very persuasive as to why he felt Kokinis could be the leader that Lerner envisioned the G.M. to be.

        When Kokinis (figuratively) slacked off and basically pulled a office space he no longer had the “strong, credible leader” that he wanted. Is it any shock that he went and got someone else? What should he do? He let Mangini pick his own guy and he barely made it to the bye week! Should he let him pick another one?!

        Basically, eschewing very plausible theories and replacing them with biased opinions the facts be damned. Who does that sound like? C’mon Frownie.

        • Anonymous

          It’s not a bad point about Kokinis, but Lerner’s hire of Kokinis was secondary to his hire of Mangini from the beginning. To essentially fire Mangini because Kokinis didn’t work out makes very little sense on the available facts. And before you go further in accusing me of eschewing anything, you should get your dates straight:

          http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-sports-fans-meet-with-lerner,0,3968108.story

          “Randall said he and Schafer spoke briefly with Lerner before Sunday’s game [against the Bears on November 1.] . In planning their demonstration for before the Monday night game against the Ravens, the fans had hoped to force Lerner and Cleveland’s front office to address growing concerns about the club’s direction as well as a lack of connection to the Browns’ storied past. . . .

          “Following Sunday’s game [against the Bears on November 1], Lerner told reporters he has no plans to fire first-year Browns coach Eric Mangini and that he would like to hire a “strong, credible, serious leader” to help run his team.”

          I wish I was making it up. Really, I do.

          • Malcolm Mathers

            Bottom line I find it hard to fault Randy Lerner for wanting to find the strong leader he felt was necessary to complete this Herculean task. He asked Mangini to find him the guy and he failed miserably. Can you really blame Lerner for hiring someone else?

            About the dates I stand corrected. I was basing it off the PFT account of the story(http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/04/randy-lerner-meets-with-two-disgruntled-fans/), although I’m a little skeptical that after they “spoke briefly” with Lerner(probably just to set up their meeting) he emerged with the “strong,credible leader” rhetoric.

          • Anonymous

            “Can you really blame Lerner for hiring someone else?”

            Maybe not, but the real question is about the guy who he ended up hiring, and what that guy did in firing Mangini.

            Another important point of this Act III that you’re highlighting here is that Hercules is a myth. Which is to say that it takes more than one guy. Or more than one guy and his cronies with whom he used to coach high school ball in California 30 years ago, etc.

          • Malcolm Mathers

            Admittedly I’m not sold on Holmgren by any stretch(http://www.brownsrant.com/2009/12/think-mike-holmgren-is-safe-bet-think.html). His resume, at least as G.M. is definitely questionable. But at least we can both agree that there was a need for someone else to be hired, right?

          • Anonymous

            Sure.

    • Cliff

      I would like to shake Manginis hand as well and thank him for what he did… hopefully he will recharge over the two years being paid to him on his contract

    • Shad0wr1ter58

      HEY FROWNS, your article was right on the money. We are now in the era of “transparency and accountability in sports. Everyone complained when Mangini wouldn’t tell them who, what , where , and why immediatley. But now when Holmmie gives no account of his actions, no reasons beside base excuses, everyone is ok with it they defend it??? I’m am a browns supporter, I support them all, but what some of these posters fail to realize is that you are only raising questions with your article. In this era when the media and fans questions every little aspect of things, why did no one question these things you bring up. And for the other guy, Mora was calling the whole team soft, a reputation that the seahawks earned over the years. Everyone knew it, but now that Hommie is here, we cant say they were soft anymore?? You must know that browns fans are gonna be just that!! with that said go browns and nothing but the best for the entire team. to the posters why so defensive, their just questions???

      • Anonymous

        Hello, FRIEND. One million cocktails to you, whoever you are.

      • http://twitter.com/technivore Matthew Rich

        The thing about the “just raising questions” style of commentating is that it is, or can be anyway, an underhanded way of saying something blatantly unfair about somebody without any evidence, while supposedly disassociating yourself from the content of the “question”.

        Here, let’s try it: Shad0wr1ter58, you claim to be a Browns fan, but what do you say to those who claim to have seen you openly rooting for the Bengals? And why do you use that creepy anonymous picture of yourself? What are you trying to hide? I mean, I’m just asking questions here.

        • Anonymous

          That’s a good point, true generally, but it depends on the questions asked, and I’m not asking Holmgren why he raped anybody. I’m just asking why he thinks anybody would have been able to do better with what Mangini has to work with.

  • Brian Sipe

    One thing I will say…. You could hear a collecitve thud Monday when Grossi’s, Rutigliano’s and several other media members jaws hit the ground as Holmgren said”I am not coching this team” I think they are all in denial still….

  • Jordan Z.

    Frowns, I’ve been with you all the way with respect to Mangini, but it seems as if your disappointment/anger with the way Mangini was run out of town is affecting your view of the future. I think the thing that most bothers me is how you slide in your skepticism of Holmgren all in the name of support for Mangini. I think Mangini should still be here, but after years of incompetence in the front office of this organization, they finally find a president in Holmgren who is expereinced and successful to lead us and he hires a GM who immediately has the best draft the Browns have had since god knows when. It’s doesn’t make sense to me to try and knock Holgmren’s status down because he let go of Mangini, the Browns finally seem to have the makings of a solid foundation up top. Maybe Mangini will go on to great successes, and I hope he does because I agree that he did a ton of good with this team. But it isn’t the end of the world, and you seem to be bringing up every example possible of how Mangini never had a fair shot here. That may be true but it seems a bit overboard as the Browns move forward with a bright future still in their sights.

    • zarathustra

      It’s not knocking holmgren down. It is merely shedding light on his abysmal record as an executive. Perhaps frowns wouldn’t have highlight it as much if the sycophants in the media had done their job. It’s because they did not do their job that that the majority of browns fans seem to be chanting the “in holmgren we trust” mantra. But why? Why should we so blindly trust him? His false humility? Because he’s been so honest in explaining why the coach was fired?
      The fact of the matter is that if you believe that overall the browns demonstrated dramatic improvement this year then a tremendous injustice has been done by holmgren and he is far from worthy of the trust he has been afforded.

  • Architectartvandelay

    “There is nothing more powerful than a made up mind” – Lewis Pugh. Frowns you are doing an admiral job trying to fight perceptions and I enjoy your work.

    In my mind the two men we should be more focused on are McCoy & Heckert rather than Mangini & Holmgren. Until the team fields a NFL capable quarterback all other discussions are irrelevant. Secondly, Heckert needs to perform at level equal to or greater than our opponents in Baltimore & Pittsburgh. The holes are obvious and the depth is lacking.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EXPZ3TIVM2JAN6G4ZSS4VXRENI Paul

    I guess you can count me in the group as permanently skeptical of almost anything. I see first hand how things are in real life and then how they are portrayed in print. To say that Holmgren is experienced as a front office man and president is true, but successful? His hiring of Heckert seems to be on the mark but I will wait see how his position as a coach translates to team president.

    As far as this past year’s draft, how many of those picks were the result of trades made by Mangini in the 2009. It’s easier to take a couple of fliers when you have an extra 2nd and 3rd rounder plus late rounders as well.

    Frownie, answer me this question. If by any others means another coach would have been expected to win more than 5 games with this talent and the foes they faced. Is it reasonable to expect another philosophically aligned coach could have won at least to 7-8 games? Should I then expect with better players in the coming year for my Brownies to win at least 10 games next season?

    Nice work frowns

  • guest

    Is it not true that Hillis, McCoy and Haden were not starters until injuries forced Mangini to start them? If so, doesn’t that that mean that the three players having the biggest impact on Cleveland’s perceived improvement this year would likely not have been playing if Mangini had his druthers?

    • zarathustra

      Hills started from the beginning of the season. Haden was a rookie in the db rotation very early on. The almighty one himself issued the edict from on high that mccoy was to sit the year out.

    • Brian Sipe

      Mangini is the one that borught Hillis here…. just ask Hillis… Heckart gets credit for making the deal but it was Mangini who said to get him and saw the talent. Just liek JErome Harrison who stunk under Romeo and can’t find the field in Philly, but under Mnagini did great. However, fans claim it was Mangini who ran him

      • Jim

        Uhh Harrison did not find the field with any regularity under Mangini until future hall-of-famer Jamal Lewis went down with a season ending injury in game nine. Mangini puts much stock in veterans, which is his choice as coach. That’s why I believe we saw Jake Delhomme return to the starting line up instead of a healthy Seneca Wallace who at this point in their respective careers is the better player.

    • bj

      You could also argue that the reason rookies who had success did so because they were brought around slowly, and were as prepared as they could be before receiving a larger on field role (exception McCoy…no choice there).

  • Jordan Z.

    I don’t think it’s a surprise that Holmgren is bringing his own people in. How often does this happen when new management is appointed? I thought it was honorable that Holmgren gave Mangini another year under him, when many coaches would have been gone immediately. I just think for once, the Browns have a competent front office and stability in what has for years been chaos. This is much more important to me than losing Mangini because to me, a great football organization starts from the top.

    • Richard

      I agree with you Jordan. And the logical extension of your analysis is this: whoever it is that Holmgren hires, along with his staff (that hopefully includes a lot of the Mangini staff–Seeley, Ryan–who were outstanding), these are HIS guys now, and they have to be here to STAY for both ups and downs. We cannot get anywhere until we have stability. Holmgren’s already a big positive in that direction because he keeps the Self-Made Son in England with that cute little scarf wrapped around his neck. Now he has to get a coach that he trusts and let the guy succeed and fail. The larger point that Peter is making, I think, is that we can never expect to win if we keep “cleaning house” every two years.

  • zarathustra

    Just so I’m clear on this: holmgren has his old high school teaching buddy pulling the strings behind the scenes and there is a good chance that the quarterback from that high school team is going to be the new coach. Why am I supposed to blindly trust this guy again? When will someone besides frowns question the path we are on with this guy. By the time prince Hal decides to let him change the name of the team to the the Cleveland Lamonts it will probably be too late.

  • zarathustra

    If by chance it turns out Mangini eventually gets another chance someday and proves successful will even a single member of the local media stand up to challenge what will surely be the pathetic chorus of “only in cleveland; he’s grown so much since he was here?” Doesn’t it speak volumes that no one in the media has been humble enough or possessed the basic self-awareness to question their previous denunciation of belichick? Doesn’t that pretty much sum up where we’re at and how we got here?

    • Anonymous

      “Doesn’t it speak volumes that no one in the media has been humble enough or possessed the basic self-awareness to question their previous denunciation of belichick? Doesn’t that pretty much sum up where we’re at and how we got here?”

      Yes.

    • bj

      Charile Manual anyone??? How is he doing over in Philly?

  • owerg

    Although, I feel that Mangini deserved another year, I think we need to see who Holmgren brings in to replace Mangini before passing complete judgment. Although there was clearly improvement, a 5-11 season is still a 5-11 season.

    If Holmgren truly believes that Mangini didn’t win enough, then it should figure that Holmgren has someone in mind that *can* win more. Firing someone who’s doing an ok job without having a replacement in mind who can do a better job would seem to be a pretty big managerial mistake. If Holmgren is as brilliant as everyone seems to believe he is, he wouldn’t do something so dumb, right? Does that mean if we aren’t at least 6-10 next year the media will be calling for Holmgren’s head? He’s the one calling the shots now; no more scapegoats from NY for Grossi et al to attack.

    I’m fine with Holmgren not offering much info on Mangini getting fired at this point. There’s no point in trashing the guy publicly and further hurting his career. I’m more interested in who the replacement will be. I haven’t been all that impressed by any of the names being thrown around; but then again I’m not that familiar with a lot of them (yet — hope to be soon — Frownie, let’s see some posts on this please!).

  • Anonymous

    How bout them Cavs?

    • Anonymous

      Woo!

    • Believelander

      Fact: teh Caves RAWK

      ALL TOGETHER!!!

  • 6thCity

    Well, I see where some of the criticism for you is coming, Frowns, but I think the only thing you’re actually guilty of is making this story seem a little but more like an Aaron Sorkin drama than it may have actually been- and that is hardly a “bad” or “wrong” thing for a writer to do.

    However, because I sincerely believe that you carefully analyze information and have the ability to express such analysis clearly, I am certainly interested in hearing more about the coaching search, Draft and trade prospects, etc.

    You made your point in defence of Mangini before he was fired and I was right there along with you. Now you’ve done a good job painting what you see as the story behind the story. Next I hope you hit us with some love for the team (even when love is hard to do?).

    • Anonymous

      Thanks. Will be able to focus better on the future once we’ve accurately accounted for the past. We’ll get there. And this is all out of love (also, hard to do).

      • 6thCity

        Well said.

  • Lawrence Mack

    Philosophical differences? Give me a break. Mangini should have kept Chudzinski as an o- coordinator instead of hiring a novice like daboll who had at best a pee wee innovative mind when dialing up plays. The main objective in any business is to get results. Mangini produced 10 wins in two seasons yet Romeo C. produced that amount in one. Where the cries to keep Romeo? Mangini got what he deserved, he was never a coach, just a guy riding the coattail of of guy who’s mastered cheating. 4 all of u Mangini backers, if he is as good as u think he is he’ll land on his feet somewhere else. Until then get over it, stick a fork in him he’s done.

    • Believelander

      Your comment is done. Romeo Crennel produced 10 wins in his first two seasons as the Browns’ coach. Eric Mangini produced 10 wins in his first two seasons as the Browns’ coach. I fail to see the argument about Crennel’s 10 win season as valid, because it’s not, because Eric Mangini didn’t get a third season.

      Actually, thank you for demonstrating for us the stupidity of firing Eric Mangini, Lawrence, your point is pretty good. You’re right, it’s stupid that Eric Mangini didn’t get a third season like Romeo Crennel did. And anyway, I like your historical accuracy you present in bringing up the fact that after producing a 10 win season in his third year, Romeo Crennel received a ‘phatty’ contract extension.

      You are also correct in pointing out that many people supported Romeo’s contract extension, and people did not call for his head until the franchise downspiraled into a 4-12 season coming off that 10-6 year. Your reasonability knows no bounds.

      I am sure you intended to go on to extrapolate that Eric Mangini, like Romeo Crennel, who produced an identical number of wins in his first two seasons as did Eric Mangini, should have received a third year to clearly prove whether the ship would right its course, flounder, or just kind of sit dead in the water under his captainage. And I agree with your unspoken point here; we are all blessed to have commenters who don’t say stuff like “Romeo Crennel won 10 games in 1 season and nobody wanted to keep him lol derpasaurus”, because that statement would be ignorantly out of context, utterly irreleveant, and historically false.

      Thank you, Lawrence, we would be lost without you.

  • Cliff Kessler

    nice job… I wanted Mangini to win… and I am grateful for the change in culture on the team and in the locker room… sometimes when you do a turn around weather in business or football you are not popular and you tenure is short. I do think his big mistake and one that the Browns have done for years was play not to lose rather than to win… the biggest illustration of this was the wins over the Saints and Pats… having said that we were and still are so thin in talent that the loss of Cribbs, Fujita and other starters hurt … but can’t change anything now… on the to the future… I hope we get a coach who will have the coordinator that will develop Colt… possibly even hire Bernie or Sipe to be a special QB coach… Frowner love your site

  • Woods

    Frowns – Enjoy your writing and analysis. Here is my opinion for what it is worth.

    Mangini did do a good job with the mess that he inherited. The team is far more disciplined and together than when he arrived.

    However, I am guessing the reason he was fired was his poor track record of rigid/inflexible in game coaching, coupled with an offensive philosophy that does not mesh with Holmgren.

    Bottom line with Mangini is he did not fit in with the philosophy of Holmgren and by extension Heckert. Heckert had an excellent track record of finding players for the west coast offense and a 4-3 defense while in Philly. He did an excellent job acquiring talent for the primitive offense and 3-4 defense run by the Browns in 2010.

    A fair question would be “What if Heckert did bring in a veteran receiver during training camp in 2010? Would it have made any difference in Brian Daboll’s offensive scheme that emphasized blocking over catching passes?”

    To have a great, not just a functioning, organization the owner, GM and coach need to be working side by side with the same philosophy. The Browns have not had this type of structure since they returned in 1999.

    I hate to say this but it is true: The Steelers are a model organization to follow with Rooney, Donohue and Tomlin in the Owner, GM and coaching roles. The Browns are two thirds of the way there with Holmgren and Heckert in the Owner and GM roles. (I know that Holmgren is not the owner of the team. Lerner did a very smart thing by abdicating all ownership duties to Holmgren.)

    Hopefully Holmgren will get the head coaching hire correct…Of all of the executives in the Browns front office in the last 11 years, I think he is the best qualified to make the right choice.

    Go Browns

    • Believelander

      Yeah, Go Browns. You -do- realize that if Holmgren and Heckert try to implement their ‘philosophy’ in the AFC North that they’re going to get completely murdered, right?
      When was the last time a pass-first offense-centric team won our division? 1819? Earlier? Owait, it was with Otto Graham. I mean, it was the most pass-centric team of its era, so I guess that counts, even though it was run-first.

      But seriously, you don’t play the ‘West Coast Offense’ on the North Coast. As Holmgren and Heckert will probably soon discover in ass-punishing 3-13 fashion when they bring in some paint-huffing panty waste offensive coordinator to coach the Browns and watch their high-scoring offense crumble in the face of serious, credible NFL defenses that infest our division.

      The evil, sadistic part of me is willing to see the Browns flounder to prove the inane nature of firing a pretty good coach for inane reasons, and that part of me is rubbing its greedy little hands together waiting for Holmgren to give himself enough rope to hang his own damn self with, now.

      • Other Dave

        Yeah, we can only win by dominating on the ground, like men. Like the Steelers.

      • Woods

        Hey Believlander,

        I liked Eric Mangini as a coach that instilled toughness and discipline to a team that was seriously lacking in both coupled with a severe lack of talent when he arrived.

        Mangini showed his limitations as a talent evaluator through the 2009 draft, however , this limitation was corrected by putting Heckert in place to run the 2010 draft. Mangini did a very nice job in bringing along the 2010 draft choices and free agents – Haden, Ward, Fujita, Watson, Gocong.

        I believe Mangini was fired for his inability to have the offense run anything other than a bland/vanilla/predictable scheme.

        A wholesale change to “The West Coast Offense” is not needed in order to run a more imaginative offense than Hillis up the middle, Hillis to the right, Pass to Stuckey two yards short of a first down and then punt. I am guessing here, but I am pretty sure that Holmgren had to be appalled by the lack of imagination displayed on offense while in the owners box at games. (I know that I was disgusted while watching the games on TV.)

        The point of my post above was the owner, GM, coach/OC should share the same offensive philosophy. This year demonstrated through a 5-11 record (1-5 in the AFC North) that the current setup with Mangini/Daboll would not work going forward. There probably would have been slight improvement with another infusion of talent through the draft and an easier 2011 schedule, but if you are in Holmgren’s shoes why continue with a coach that you disagree with on basic concepts of offensive execution?

        I am a Browns fan and I want to see them succeed. This is why I say Go Browns.

      • Atodd90

        I don’t like the fire, but I am skeptical of the rationale that we have to beat the Steelers and Ravens at their own game to compete in the AFC North.

        The WCO offense works in other cold weather cities (Philly/Green Bay). It can be a balanced pass/run offense and not the Andy Reid variety. The Pats used a short passing game to expose the weakness in the Steeler defense earlier this year.

  • Scottish Browns Fan

    Hi there, i’m a Browns fan living in Scotland ( yes we do exist) and found a link to your website while reading the Plain Dealer. Great stuff. There are a few points i’d disagree with but you put forward your points in a very readable way. On the Holmgren “giving him enough rope to hang himself” point i’d say after four wins to end last season he had to give him a chance wether he believed he could build on it or not. I think Holmgren wants to coach the team himself but doesn’t wnat to appear as though he;s given up on the presidency too quickly.

  • Paul, Glasgow

    Hi there, i’m a Browns fan living in Scotland ( yes we do exist) and found a link to your website while reading the Plain Dealer. Great stuff. There are a few points i’d disagree with but you put forward your points in a very readable way. On the Holmgren “giving him enough rope to hang himself” point i’d say after four wins to end last season he had to give him a chance wether he believed he could build on it or not. I think Holmgren wants to coach the team himself but doesn’t wnat to appear as though he;s given up on the presidency too quickly.

  • Wes1956

    Mangini did a good job with the foundation of the Browns. They are set up to win. He weeded out the bad and brought good old stability and dicipline to this hard working team. I loved when Holmgren said he wasn’t going to coach. The media and anti-fans have finally been told to shut-up. Now that Mangini’s gone they have no one to bash and write about.

  • Bull7

    If you always do what you always did—you’ll always get what you always got..

    I’m a pissed off browns fan. Steeler week and not a word about the upcoming game. All the talk by the media was Mangini’s job status.
    I think the players picked up on it and concluded that the game was meaning less and their on field performance showed it.

    At the start of training camp, both Grossi and Mary Kay Cabot didn’t question how many wins were needed to win the division, how many wins to get into the playoffs. Rather they wrote how many wins did Mangini need to keep his job.

    I’m 66 years old, a life long Browns fan. As a college kid we’d buy end zone seats cause they were the cheapest, all the rowdies were there and if the wind was blowing in your direction you could get a good second hand buzz.

    The new Browns marketed the “Dawg Pound” and now it’s filled with more of the opponents fans (after the 1st 3 rows) and is now a status symbol type seat. In my day if you were an opponents fan in the end zone more than likely you’d get an earfull or more.

    Fireing Mangini was wrong but predictible. The current Browns are too slow & lack enough playmakers. The problem is the players and not the coach but the coach is easier to hate and get rid of…. Top Dawg Daddy Bull66

  • Atodd90

    Wonderful job with this series of articles.

    In retrospect it’s easy to see that the writing was on the wall.

    Holmgren brought in Delhomme and Wallace. Not exactly guys you’d bet the ranch on turning an offense around. He watched the same tape that led him to rightly conclude that neither Quinn nor Anderson was a guy that could win in the NFL and apparently concluded that we were okay with Robo and Momass?? The only vet receiver brought in was 87-year-old Bobby Ingram. No receiver was drafted until the 6th round, and that was a Paul Hubbard-like draft for measurables.

    Holmgren picked McCoy, but laid down an edict that McCoy would sit and watch this season. For Mangini, it was sink or swim with Delhomme and Wallace. What coach would have taken this job knowing that going in?

    In a curious pre-season move, Heckert made a tender offer to RFA Weaver — Eagles fullback in their WCO. Vickers ended the 2009 season looking like an All-Pro fullback in Mangini’s offense. I’m not sure this was even reported locally. Virtually no one carries two fullbacks who are active on game day.

    Holmgren and Heckert did nothing to bolster an aging defensive line, save for the curious move of acquiring a 4-3 lineman (Jamie Mitchell) from the Vikings half-way through the season. He never dressed. They didn’t acquire a single 3-4 experienced front 7 player in the draft or free agency. Fugita and Gocong had primarily been 4-3 linebackers.

    Not saying H&H. didn’t upgrade the roster. They did. But they seemed very careful not to commit to acquiring any piece specifically to fit Mangini’s offense or defense.

    Remember, this was an uncapped year.

    Then, during the season, Holmgren hung Mangini out to dry by suggesting to the local press that he was not considering coming back to the sidelines. To the extent Mangini was winning any trust in the locker room — which seemed to be the case — this doomed it.

    Much has been said about the great draft that Holmgren and Heckert put together and their solid offseason moves. It has only been whispered that it was Mangini who asked for the Hillis “throw in” in the Quinn trade and Ward with the second-round pick.

    Removing consideration of Ward in the draft, here’s what’s left:

    Haden — very solid pick considering need.

    Hardesty — potentially devastatingly poor pick, considering what was given up to trade up a few spots and made more questionable by his injury history, which seems to include micro-fracture surgery.

    McCoy — good roll of the dice. The kid has the intangibles and the smarts, but the jury’s still out. He made some very poor throws once the conditions turned poor. I like him, though.

    Lavaou – unproductive rookie year. This is a disappointment for a 3rd round offensive line selection.

    Asante – cut, practice squad, signed by Tampa Bay.

    Mitchell — non-factor, project receiver.

    Geathers, cut.

    Take out TJ Ward and P. Hillis and the Browns’ offseason was rather ho-hum.

  • Atodd90

    Holmgren is a proven commodity AS A HEAD COACH. He has a spotty record as a GM and we have only the first year to judge him a “Big Chief” — which includes the Delhomme signing, the Jim Brown fiasco and his needless “I haven’t ruled out coaching” mid-season press conference blunder.

    If he steps to the sidelines as Head Coach of the Browns — firing Mangini is a “no-brainer.” John Fox? I like him, but he did less with more than Mangini. John Gruden? After being in the right place at the right time, he managed 3 and 4 win seasons with a much more talented TB team and NEVER developed a young QB. Morningwig or Mularkey? Really? That’s a “Delhomme” all over again. Pat Shurmur, we’ll see.

    Holmgren needs to sack up and step down. I would have liked to have seen him coach this roster against this schedule.

  • john

    Where is the link to part IV?

    • Anonymous

      GREAT QUESTION.

  • http://www.clevelandfrowns.com/ Cleveland Frowns

    The Clark Judge column (which remains the most truthful and accurate assessment in the mainstream press of Mangini’s tenure as Browns HC) is (god only knows why) no longer up at CBS’s website but someone posted it at the RealCavsFans message board so I’m screenshotting that here for posterity:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/acbb5405b7cda7d670c2b69ef55db83afe03e700dee864789bac2a3d05758e5b.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a094ace74d1718336c3dccfe70eb22d337cfdcb729a2c4bad68f59c86d443e54.png

Previous post:

Next post: