PDA

View Full Version : How are Folks Feeling About Eric Mangini These Days?



tico887
07-09-2010, 05:32 PM
I will say this to begin with. I was not impressed with the choice when he was brought on board. Having said that, I think it was a smart move to keep him at least for this year. I'm on the left coast and don't get much word on the Browns' affairs (I hope this site helps cure that) but I know there were some mixed feelings about him at the end of last year.

Chilly
07-09-2010, 05:59 PM
Late season win spurts by mediocre [at best] teams are extremely overrated, in my humble opinion, and I don't put much into what Mangini 'did' at the end of the year. What really happened was that the ball bounced their way and their style fit well against the teams they played at the end of the year. When you look at what Holmgren is trying to do, it seems to conflict with the values and approach that Mangini traditionally instills to his teams. I think a handpicked coach by Holmgren would make more sense, but at least we still have the Man-Genius to poke fan at. At least until Week 6, when he gets the inevitable ax.

mkocs6
07-10-2010, 08:50 AM
The Browns beat some awful football teams down the stretch last year. They beat the Steelers in the midst of a five game losing streak (not that I'm complaining), the Chiefs, the Raiders, and the Jaguars (who were also at the end of a four game slide to close the book on their season). The defense looked good and looked creative, and I think we really improved ourselves there in the draft (we clearly wanted to get defensive backs who can tackle, and we did that) and in free agency (some great LB pickups). But offense is still absolutely prehistoric--we ran Cribbs out of the wildcat on way too many third and longs even during that four game winning streak. Telegraphing that you won't pass in an obvious throwing situation not only won't win any football games against good teams playing for something, but it shows either an alarming lack of understanding of offense and personnel; potentially both, and while our backfield looks solid and we took a flyer on Delhomme, we still have no receivers to stretch the field and make plays. I'm just hoping we beat the Buccaneers and Chiefs in our first two games--winnable football games against bad teams that the Browns should be able to handle--so we can keep the natives from revolting and give the organization time to groom McCoy, who is not ready for NFL football.

As far as Mangini specifically, most Clevelanders I know backed keeping him around for another season (of course, they wanted him executed in Week 11). I don't see any way he gets fired mid-season, though. The team will win enough games to keep his job, and honestly, there's no one on his staff who looks like a logical interim successor, unless Holmgren decides to come down to the sidelines mid-season.

Kosar19
07-10-2010, 09:20 AM
I have to admit that I was a fan of hiring Mangini when they did. I also kept defending him even as the Browns were losing horribly for most of the year. I really felt the turning point for the Browns was the bye-week. They were a different team after that. They lost their first four games after the bye week. Three of those teams went to the playoffs (Ravens, Bengals, & Chargers) and the one team that didn't (Lions) they had beat. They were in everyone of those games. Before the bye, the Browns lost 7 games by an average of 19 points (smallest loss was 3 to Bengals in OT, all the rest over 13) and only had a realistic shot in 1. After the bye, the Browns lost 4 games by and average of 8 points and had a realistic shot in all but one (they were plain awful on the offensive end that game against teh Ravens, no shot at scoring). I really think the team was starting to come around by the middle of the season, and it was starting to show before we even realized it. This year Mangini will only have to coach, not have to deal with personnell stuff, and has a QB going into camp. The receivers are a year older, and the guys understand how he operates. I'm not calling playoffs, or any such thing, but I think your more likely to see a team that resembles the way the second half Browns played, not the first half.

Colts01
07-10-2010, 02:22 PM
I just remember how awful that offence was in the middle of the year,was painful to watch

BuckeyeRidley
07-10-2010, 02:37 PM
Awesome question Tico! All of the Browns fans that I have spoken think that Mangini can't do it and think that the Browns aren't going anywhere soon. There is a feeling that the Browns are slightly on to something by having Mike Holmgren there. The Browns specifically are not believed to do well this year despite some additions of folks like Colt McCoy & Jake Delhomme. There's no too much optimism around the team but fans are still supporting them and holding on to being a fan regardless. The unfortunate part is no evidence is present that Eric Mangini can turn this team around despite the small winning streak the team went on when Browns were not in playoff contention.

mkocs6
07-10-2010, 03:27 PM
re: Colts01, the receivers may be a year older, but there is no one on the field who looks dangerous. I'm not trying to be negative, Mohammed Massaquoi might be the best wide receiver on the team, and he's probably a #3 in terms of talent, a #2 at best. I'm glad we just picked up a veteran like Engram, but he's on the other side of 35 and I'm not sure how much he has left. We desperately need to draft a playmaker next April.

re: Kosar19, I live in Texas right now and don't get to see the team nearly as much as I'd like. I did, though, watch that Ravens game, and I have no idea what you mean when you say that (1) we were in the football game and (2) we looked like we had turned the corner. I disagree. It was technically never more than a two-score game, but the Browns never seriously threatened throughout the ordeal. I'd be interested in learning what you mean.

All that said, the team played much better football down the stretch (as I outlined in my previous post) but did so against pretty weak competition (also discussed). I'm willing to give Mangini a chance this year, and think we've upgraded on defense, but I have a lot of questions about the offense's ability to score consistently. We're not going to win games in Weeks 1-13 with our ratio of runs to passes north of 70:30.

BuckeyeRidley
07-10-2010, 03:53 PM
re: Colts01, the receivers may be a year older, but there is no one on the field who looks dangerous. I'm not trying to be negative, Mohammed Massaquoi might be the best wide receiver on the team, and he's probably a #3 in terms of talent, a #2 at best. I'm glad we just picked up a veteran like Engram, but he's on the other side of 35 and I'm not sure how much he has left. We desperately need to draft a playmaker next April.

re: Kosar19, I live in Texas right now and don't get to see the team nearly as much as I'd like. I did, though, watch that Ravens game, and I have no idea what you mean when you say that (1) we were in the football game and (2) we looked like we had turned the corner. I disagree. It was technically never more than a two-score game, but the Browns never seriously threatened throughout the ordeal. I'd be interested in learning what you mean.

All that said, the team played much better football down the stretch (as I outlined in my previous post) but did so against pretty weak competition (also discussed). I'm willing to give Mangini a chance this year, and think we've upgraded on defense, but I have a lot of questions about the offense's ability to score consistently. We're not going to win games in Weeks 1-13 with our ratio of runs to passes north of 70:30.

Good Point mkocs; I think that the Browns have a good receiver in Massaquoi; He's been getting some buzz with some Browns fans since last year. I want Brian Robiskie to get a chance but he didn't seem very impressive in one look in on Monday Night Football when it was a lackluster game against the Ravens. But with more NFL retooling and building off of what successes he had last year Massaquoi can be the Man in Cleveland--Like it or not & Believe it or not, it's gonna take some Eric Mangini to get the work done from the coach's standpoint!

Kosar19
07-12-2010, 01:13 PM
mkocs6 - I might have not been clear when I typed that, I was trying to say that the game against the Ravens the Browns had NO chance in. They couldn't move the ball, and turned it over continuously. That was one of the worst games I've ever watched. If the Ravens had only put up a field goal, it would've still felt like a 55-0 drubbing.

Cris Collinsworth
07-12-2010, 01:20 PM
One more bad year for the Browns may not be a bad thing, there are some talented QBs in this draft class. It is possible Holmgren gives Mangini a chance, and if it doesn't work, new coach and new QB come in together. If you had to give one reason why Mangini was retained, what would it be?

Pruitt
07-12-2010, 02:16 PM
One more bad year for the Browns may not be a bad thing, there are some talented QBs in this draft class. It is possible Holmgren gives Mangini a chance, and if it doesn't work, new coach and new QB come in together. If you had to give one reason why Mangini was retained, what would it be?

The Browns are already paying one ex-coach and two ex-GMs to stay away from the team, so adding a fourth to that group when Holmgren is raking it in would have been one pay check too many.

Only "positive" reason that I can think of is that he managed to lead the team to 4 wins to end the year. Beating Pittsburgh was great, but the Chiefs, Raiders and Jags are not good teams.

I imagine that Mangini has gone from being the King of the team at the start of last year to being a Coach on a very tight leash to start this year. Big picture - that's the way it should be.

InNOutBurgler
07-12-2010, 02:20 PM
The same way we're all going to feel about Rex Ryan in five years. Flash in a pan

Kosar19
07-12-2010, 03:10 PM
It also may have been that Holmgren took a look around to see who else might be available and decided that Mangini might be better than what was available. Another theory could be the possibilty of a lockout looming. He's shaking enough stuff up that if this doesn't go well he may have an extended off-season to see who he would like to go with, not just for head coach, but the entire staff.

I really, really hope there isn't a lockout, but right now it doesn't look promising.

mkocs6
07-12-2010, 04:52 PM
I think Pruitt's on the money, no pun intended. I got to watch the last few games of the season when I was visiting Cleveland, and attended the Raiders game. Maybe I'm bogged down in soccer terminology post- World Cup, but the team seemed to be playing with conviction, especially on defense. I think when they started winning games (and, I mean, winning in kind of a fun way, right? Wild blitz packages on defense and a running game steamrolling people) and things started to go right, albeit against bad teams, players started to buy in. A friend of mine thinks Holmgren is using Mangini to keep the seat warm for him so that he can step in and coach after he builds the team, but I'm not sure about that.

And Cris, if the Browns are looking quarterback this draft, why waste a fairly valuable third-rounder on McCoy? We had already signed Delhomme and have an embarrassingly serious need at wide receiver. I guess if you feel like you have franchise guy on the board you have to take him (I'm talking about next year here, if the Browns end up with a top ten pick again and are looking at guys like Mallett and Locker) but I'd rather see us go the playmaker route. We have a respectable line and a deep backfield, so some talent at WR might produce a nice little offense, as long as we didn't whiff on McCoy. The concern with him is height, arm strength? Call me stubborn, but he's an accurate passer and he wins big games, and we haven't drafted a quarterback who's done the latter in a while.

tico887
07-12-2010, 07:52 PM
One more bad year for the Browns may not be a bad thing, there are some talented QBs in this draft class. It is possible Holmgren gives Mangini a chance, and if it doesn't work, new coach and new QB come in together. If you had to give one reason why Mangini was retained, what would it be?

Having been in Seattle through Mike's stay there, I got the impression he doesn't like knee jerk reactions. I imagine he feels as though a lot of things in football need to develop and one year is a very short time frame to turn a club around, regardless of which club. I would think it might not have set well with him to come in and make major changes quickly. Lastly, I would think he and Eric had several talks when he arrived, and perhaps he felt that with a stable (Not necessarily GOOD, mind you) quarterback going into camp, as Kosar19 mentioned, Eric will have an even playing field from which to prove himself. It took Mike two or three years to get Seattle to seriously contend, and he may (provided he sees real progress this year) want to give coach the benefit of some time to at least reveal where he can take the team.

Thanks to all for the responses. Nice to get some hometown insight. Beleive it or not, as torturous as it can be, GOD I miss Cleveland. Best fans ANYWHERE.

Matthews57
07-12-2010, 10:02 PM
Chris i think the main thing i heard from fans i know about keeping mangini was simply the desire to NOT see the entire organization blown up and started from scratch AGAIN. It's happened over and over since they've come back and nothing good has come from it. At least we don't have another never-ending QB competition this year. They won't be a playoff team by any means, but at this point just a decent showing with some bright spots will suffice. Holmgren has a proven track record and given enough time we all hope he'll come up with a winning combination.

lraybern
07-23-2010, 01:55 AM
To see it work! I still remember Cribbs running those tds so close together ! I loved that ! Hope to see that kind of action again.

Colts01
07-23-2010, 02:06 AM
It also may have been that Holmgren took a look around to see who else might be available and decided that Mangini might be better than what was available. Another theory could be the possibilty of a lockout looming. He's shaking enough stuff up that if this doesn't go well he may have an extended off-season to see who he would like to go with, not just for head coach, but the entire staff.

I think you hit the nail on 'O' head

tico887
07-23-2010, 11:25 AM
I think you make a good point Cris. I am one of those who believes that this really will be a building year and though I certainly hope their record improves, (Last year was simply painful to watch) I look to 2011 to be where a lot of the pieces finally find a way to gel and fit. I think Holmgren might have had one of two, or perhaps both reasons to keep Mangini. First, I would think he was concerned about retaining some consistency. With the front office taking such turnover, he might have felt the head coach position needed to provide some semblence of familiarity. I also wonder though, whether trust had something to do with it. It seems to me, that as a player, I would find it troubling (though not entirely unusual) that a new general manager would totally gut the top part of a team. That would tell me (as a player) that he had no faith in any of the things we (as a group of players) worked hard to accomplish the year before. What I have seen from Mike Holmgren has told me that he is truly a players' coach, so the message he sends to them matters to him. I'm not sure that didn't play a factor in all this.

OverTheTop
07-23-2010, 12:15 PM
Cris, to answer your last question, I think Mangini was retained because of the looming lockout in 2011. The Browns didn't want to give a 3 or 5 year big contract to a new head coach who may not be coaching for an entire season or partial season in 2011 and subsequently are putting themselves in position to give Holmgren an oppurtunity to bring in "one of his guys" in preparation for 2012 and beyond. Mangini would have been brought back even if the Browns had not gone on a winning streak at the end of the year. This situation has lame duck written all over it. Kosar19 mentioned the lockout also in his post above and I agree with him on that point.

Pruitt
07-26-2010, 02:29 PM
Cris, to answer your last question, I think Mangini was retained because of the looming lockout in 2011. The Browns didn't want to give a 3 or 5 year big contract to a new head coach who may not be coaching for an entire season or partial season in 2011 and subsequently are putting themselves in position to give Holmgren an oppurtunity to bring in "one of his guys" in preparation for 2012 and beyond. Mangini would have been brought back even if the Browns had not gone on a winning streak at the end of the year. This situation has lame duck written all over it. Kosar19 mentioned the lockout also in his post above and I agree with him on that point.

You are very wise for a Steelers fan. This makes the most sense of all.

lraybern
07-26-2010, 09:48 PM
Have you ever had a feeling that they are going to win! Lets look at their difference not failures, focus on Cribbs being backed by players, Its going to be so good! I think they used to be known as coming back in 3rd quarter. This year they will already be ahead.

OverTheTop
07-26-2010, 11:44 PM
Have you ever had a feeling that they are going to win! Lets look at their difference not failures, focus on Cribbs being backed by players, Its going to be so good! I think they used to be known as coming back in 3rd quarter. This year they will already be ahead.

Optimism is great, but what leads you to believe that it is going to be so good? I'm not knocking your positive outlook Iraybern, just wondering what the difference is that you are seeing that is giving you hope for 2010, and specifically why you believe they will get leads early in games this time around as opposed to attempting to come from behind in the 2nd half?

mkocs6
07-27-2010, 07:00 PM
Optimism is great, but what leads you to believe that it is going to be so good? I'm not knocking your positive outlook Iraybern, just wondering what the difference is that you are seeing that is giving you hope for 2010, and specifically why you believe they will get leads early in games this time around as opposed to attempting to come from behind in the 2nd half?

I'm not sure we're going to be leading in the second half most of the time, but when we win games we're going to have score early and protect leagues. Unless a passing game materializes out of nowhere, I'm not sure how we come back. One of my biggest problems with Mangini was his choice to hire and retain offensive coordinator Brian Daboll. When the Mangenius took over the team, the offense hadn't scored a touchdown in over 300 plays, so the guy he brings in to run his offense has never coordinated anything and didn't even have a respectable, intelligent answer when the local media asked him who his major offensive influences were (he mentioned about a dozen different coaches, living and dead, those he'd worked with and those he hadn't; I interpret that as long form for, no one, or at least, I have no idea what I'm looking for or what I'm going to do). What's more, Mangini has been a defensive coach for his entire career, and so giving the keys to an greenhorn coordinator without a clear direction is bad policy, and I think electing to give him a second year could make or break Mangini in Cleveland. Along the same lines, the hiring of Kokinis (the former GM) and his bizarre, abrupt dismissal raises eyebrows, too. Mangini obviously assembled his staff, and since he was on board before the General Manager, he got to sign off on that hire as well. Not to play armchair psychologist or to make too strong a judgment about someone, but he certainly looked a little insecure, as though he was afraid to hire people who may be smarter or more experienced than he was.

The reason to be optimistic is, at least that's all over. There's a new sheriff in town, with a GM who's worked for a very successful franchise in a significant role (but without final say in personnel decisions) and who wants to be in Cleveland. I think the team will be better than last year, though I'm not sure it translates into wins and losses yet, as the schedule is a death march through the NFC South, AFC East, and AFC North. But I think in the right hands, the offense could be inventive and kind of fun--it's not my style, but with all of our tight ends, fullbacks, and runningbacks (who come with a variety of skills sets and who can contribute different things), I like the potential for 3 TE sets, maybe mixing and matching with Peyton Hillis, Lawrence Vickers, or even Montario Hardesty, and playing some fundamentally sound, smashmouth-but-still-innovative football. Hopefully we get some leads to protect, because I'm not sure we can throw when we're behind.

lraybern
07-27-2010, 07:54 PM
Optimism is great, but what leads you to believe that it is going to be so good? I'm not knocking your positive outlook Iraybern, just wondering what the difference is that you are seeing that is giving you hope for 2010, and specifically why you believe they will get leads early in games this time around as opposed to attempting to come from behind in the 2nd half?

Looking at the past, and with blockers , if targets are hit this is it! Quarterbacks important but blockers are what makes it possible to run touchdowns! Plus 100% Heart ,Cribbs has me dancing all over the frontroom with Grandkids . I cant wait for them to say MaMa did they sack em again!

lraybern
07-27-2010, 08:50 PM
I just read about positions on the browns website, says about what I did only gives names with positions, Told ya, I think this is the year!

lraybern
08-15-2010, 11:29 AM
Optimism is great, but what leads you to believe that it is going to be so good? I'm not knocking your positive outlook Iraybern, just wondering what the difference is that you are seeing that is giving you hope for 2010, and specifically why you believe they will get leads early in games this time around as opposed to attempting to come from behind in the 2nd half?

Wondered if your optimism changed after the win, you know scoring early and what about that kicker!