The Here We Go Yet Again "New and Improved" Browns Coaching Search Thread

I think that is a bit of an easy way of looking at it.

The more complicated version would include an owner making comments about sticking with the plan and the coach feeling pressured to do so. Haslam may be influencing the on-field decisions by simply being a part of the game planning process. Sometimes things give the appearance of success when it's not getting you all the way to the end zone, and other times things look like they are accomplishing nothing but the ultimately set up eventual success.

That's all I'm really suggesting.

Again, this feel a bit like the easiest way of looking at it. Not necessarily that it's wrong, just that it leads towards 'best case'.

Haslam may want to learn the game, but he could be doing that at any point on the calendar. Having the gameplan sent to him for any other reason than to simply have an idea of what they are trying to do on Sundays (or, as the possibility you suggest of learning the game) seems like worst case micromanagement.

If he actually forces a change in the game plan then I can see multiple reasons why it would trend towards failure and very few that would lead towards a positive outcome.

But, in full disclosure, I have a preferred ideal of what I think a front office should look like so I definitely have a bias in opinion on this.

Yes and no.

I suggested Andrew Berry be brought back as GM from the beginning. I think he should have been the first hire made the moment that Dorsey/Kitchens got the axe.

I'm ok with Stefanski. It's probably not the hire that I would have made (can't speak in definitives because I don't get to interview anyone) but I think it's infinitely better than handing the keys over to Josh McDaniels.

 

Yep, Pat Shurmur was canned after going 4-12. However, the owner in 2011 was still Randy Lerner - not Jimmy Haslam. Haslam has had his fair share of firings, but Shurmur isn't one of them.

 

This is the same ownership group that had marketing live-stream hardcore pornography on a giant wall at the facility for nearly 20 minutes before interruption.

There's a 60/40 chance that gameplan gets emailed to the opposing coaches the night before the game...

 

With the exception of Mike Pettine... which coach did we have that wasn't terrible at his job? I'm genuinely curious who people think we should have kept?

Yes... changing coaches/regime every 1-2 years is exhausting... but sticking with the wrong hire for longer? That's worse.

 

My concern is an owner being an owner, not an OC, DC, or GM. I fear Stefanski will be too weak to stand up to ownership, and demand he be allowed to do his job. For that matter, can he stand up to Baker, Jarvis, Odel, et al?

This is my fear on Stefanski in general. Does he have balls? If he isn't prepared to demand respect from ownership, how can we expect him to demand it from his players?

I hope I am way wrong on this, cause if I'm not we are in for another disaster, and Baker, Jarvis and Odel will run for the exits. Then Slam will "try to get it right" again, and no one will come here to coach or play.

I'm sorry, but I just have no faith in Slam as an owner. I don't think he is learning how to be an owner, and it continues to undermine progress.

 

Maybe Stefanski embracing analytics will work out for us?

 

Who should we have kept?
Who knows. One thing we do know is that we'll never know since none were ever retained for long enough to find out.

That is the issue. Stop trying to hit a home run. Pick a solid GM and HC. Then let them work it for 3 years.

 

Honest question: would you want two more seasons of Freddie Kitchens?

 

You don't demand respect from your employer. You earn it.

 

Do you really think Freddie Kitchens was a home run attempt? He was a popular hire because he "supposedly" had a great working relationship with Baker Mayfield, but I don't see that as a swing for the fences from ownership. Nor was Hue. Nor the Stefanski hire for that matter. I'm just thankful to have an owner that cares. It's been a rough go for Haslam to say the least, but at least he's trying to build us a winner.

To me, Stefanski seems like a potentially good hire, if for no other reason than we finally seem to be making an effort to have the front office and coaching staff all on the same page. I think it's pretty clear that the Browns are "all in" on the Depodesta plan at this point..

 

OK. Let me say it, so we can stop using Freddie as the example: Freddie was the one coach who was just totally inept out loud. So no, I wouldn't want Freddie for another two years.

And, no I don't think Freddie was a home run attempt. Freddie was the result of Dorsey's ego, and Slam choosing the exact wrong time to grant him full autonomy.

The "home run" reference was probably not a good choice of words, and more of an expression of frustration.

It just feels like Slam veers from one extreme to another. If I am to give him credit, it would have to be for taking us to the depths of hell with Sashi, in order to amass the talent we now have. That said, one could argue (as Top Dawg does) that he's returning to the only success he's had, by reclaiming the "analytics" approach.

Maybe he's right. Maybe marrying the coach, GM, and DePodesta into a sythesis can come together and make it work.

I always felt Sashi got a raw deal, having done exactly what he was tasked to do. He may not have been the guy to do the personnel choices with all that draft capital, but he did a masterful job in securing it. Now we're "the analytics team". God bless us, everyone.

 

I probly should stop watching football talk shows.

Bill Parcels "likes" the Stefanski hire. Thinks it will be to Baker's benefit, and thinks he'll make running the football a central theme, which again will help Baker.

Now I am a New York area resident, and as such have seen a lot of Parcels, and respect him as a coach. That said, he's been out of it for years, and doesn't claim to know Stefanski personally, do grain of salt and all that, but I admit, it made me feel better about it.

Top Dawg's post also helped to give me some perspective, and overcome my depressing negative feeling about Slam and co.

Thanks

 

My two cents on the game plan..

I would be worried if he wanted it presented on Tuesday or Wednesday... He wants a copy of it on Friday.. this is after it has been completed and implemented to the team. Friday is a day of reflection on the game plan that was implemented on Tuesday and Wednesday, then walked through on Thursday with the team. Haslem could do the same thing by projecting himself into this process Tuesday through Thursday, but THAT could be disruptive to the process. Getting a copy of the finished product on Friday, in my mind, is his way of having an understanding of what they are trying to accomplish on Sunday. Then Sunday night he has a better knowledge base to work off of when trying to decipher what worked and what didn't work and why.

He couldn't change the game plan on Friday even if he wanted to...

 

This sums up my thoughts as well. Hell, I might not have survived watching any more games with Hue Jackson calling the shots, and then just when I think we might have things heading in the right direction after that hot mess, here comes the Freddie fiasco. smh.... If the last 20 years of Browns football were a written book, I don't think it would be believable.

So here we go. Time for Haslam to hit the reset button once again. It sucks, but it is better than standing pat when things are clearly toxic. And quite honestly, I'd rather have a trigger happy owner than one that is content with mediocrity....Make no mistake. Browns fans deserve way better than this.

 

This is 100% accurate.

Haslam wanting to see the gameplan in a meeting with coaches on Friday is clearly a reaction to the fact that Monken and Kitchens were never on the same page and were changing the gameplan -- sometimes in game -- last season. That obviously burnt the team and he's trying to hold folks accountable by making sure everyone's on the same page heading into game day.

The head coaching having final say on the 46 man roster is clearly a reaction to allowing John Dorsey the latitude to run both 53- and 46-man rosters which had some of our most talented players sitting on the sidelines (Higgins and Njoku specifically) simply because the wrong guy drafted them.

Putting more power in the hands of the "nerds" versus the "football guys" is an over-correction to giving Dorsey basically complete autonomy over football operations the past two seasons.

Why I'm hoping it's different this time is that it truly does seem everyone is on the same page. For better or worse, the "nerds" look to have come out ahead in the power struggle. As you said, last time Sashi got burned because Haslam allowed him and Hue to be seen as equals but they were forever pulling in opposite directions. He over-corrected at the time and gave Dorsey completely control, yet still had DePodesta and Berry in the building and sought their counsel enough to have conflicting views.

With the right GM hire, ownership, front office, and coaching staff should all -- for the first time in Jimmy's tenure as owner -- be on the same page. Yes, him being too meddlesome (as he was in the 2014-2016 epoch) is always going to be a concern. Unfortunately, he's the football owner and it's his team. Hopefully, he's there in a supervisory role and he trusts the people he's hired to make the actual decisions.

 

Hmmm...

 

Somebody will need to educate me on "the rules" concerning poaching a coach from another team's coaching staff.

 

Which coach?

Typically, teams don't deny interviews and as long as the position is a rung higher on the ladder at the new organization, they can be hired. If they're an OC at a current job, they need to have the title "OC and Assistant HC" or the like. I also think the current organization has an opportunity to match offers.

 

Thanks, Sammy. That's kinda what I thought it was but wasn't 100% sure.