Texans job could be open after today’s mess and that wouldn’t be a terrible landing spot if he brings Nick C. with him.
Stefanski presented a detailed vision of how he will approach the head coaching job. He made it clear he was willing to yield to certain DePodesta standards, such as an analytics person with a head set and access to the coaching staff on game days, in addition to certain Haslam likes, such as hours-long, Monday-after, owner-coach meetings.
Stefanski returned to the Vikings (they lost 27-10 to the 49ers on Saturday) having improved on the impression he left last year. His willingness to work with coaching, analytics and ownership types in ways agreeable to DePodesta and Haslam were big selling points.
https://www.cantonrep.com/sports/20200112/steve-doerschuk-josh-mcdaniels-wouldnrsquot-back-down-browns-owner-backed-awayMcDaniels arrived Friday, smartly dressed, Fitbit trim and in a better mindset than ever to address a crowd of important strangers with respect but conviction.
He appreciated all the amenities of an interview (the Browns are regarded as gracious hosts) but focused on a few cold, hard questions.
Would they take to him as a person and as a leader? There had been a sense he and DePodesta would get to know each other quickly and be kindred spirits. This is thought to have become the case.
Would the Browns show a willingness to applaud his detailed presentation on the sweeping makeover that would be needed for him to want the job? This is where the trouble with his candidacy came to a head.
The Browns were as detailed with him as to the parts of their system they want to keep, or expand, as he was with them as to necessary changes.
In the end, both came to a similar conclusion: It wasn’t a great fit.
The Browns want to hang on to some of the ideas they still think can work. McDaniels had quite different ideas.
So le me see if I have this right. The Browns interview Josh and he says he wants to make some changes to the organization to improve football operations. Mostly likely to mirror the way things are run at Gillette for the last 20 years during a period of historic success. And the Browns say, no thanks, we think our way is working just. Huh...Yup, stay as far away as you can from this cesspool, Josh.
https://www.cantonrep.com/sports/20200112/steve-doerschuk-josh-mcdaniels-wouldnrsquot-back-down-browns-owner-backed-away
View: https://twitter.com/DustinFox37/status/1216510921947914240?s=19
The part about consulting the owner about game plans by Friday? (assuming the tweet above is accurate) I dont think that qualifies as being ahead of the curve. The only response to that is the one Dr. Westfall gave to Dr. Gideon.Are the Browns wrong? McDaniels as a head coach is most known for drafting Tim Tebow in the first round. He wasn't good in Denver and he was capricious at best in last year's dance with the Colts. The NFL is full of guys who are great coordinators but lousy head coaches (Wade Phillips, Norv Turner, etc.). Less so guys like BB who were great HCs after being fired elsewhere. And BB's track record is not exactly great in grooming good HCs.
I have no idea if the Browns are ahead of the curve here, or are morons. But good for them for sticking to their plan and giving it a shot.
I do not know whether Josh McD will be a good head coach or not. I also do think it is possible that getting feedback (not veto, but just hearing perspective) from an analytics team could be helpful for an NFL team. But I am pretty sure that having Haslem review the game plan is not a helpful step for any head coach.Are the Browns wrong? McDaniels as a head coach is most known for drafting Tim Tebow in the first round. He wasn't good in Denver and he was capricious at best in last year's dance with the Colts. The NFL is full of guys who are great coordinators but lousy head coaches (Wade Phillips, Norv Turner, etc.). Less so guys like BB who were great HCs after being fired elsewhere. And BB's track record is not exactly great in grooming good HCs.
I have no idea if the Browns are ahead of the curve here, or are morons. But good for them for sticking to their plan and giving it a shot.
Love the St. Elsewhere reference, tho I don't remember the specifics.The part about consulting the owner about game plans by Friday? (assuming the tweet above is accurate) I dont think that qualifies as being ahead of the curve. The only response to that is the one Dr. Westfall gave to Dr. Gideon.
What better time for a meddlesome owner to meddle than after things are set up.Love the St. Elsewhere reference, tho I don't remember the specifics.
On further thought, that makes no sense, especially since coaches develop game plan by Tues night and players get them on Weds, and practice to them Weds-Thurs. What can happen Friday to change that?
"A Moon For the Misbegotten"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elsewhere#cite_note-10Original air date: September 30, 1987
St. Eligius is saved (and any damage from the above-mentioned "Wrecker's Ball" repaired), but it falls under the new ownership of Ecumena Corporation, a national managed health care concern. (The use of "Ecumena" garnered some real-life controversy, as Humana thought the use of that name sounded too much like its own; the trademark-infringement lawsuit that ensued prompted NBC to begin airing post-episode disclaimers stating that Ecumena was indeed fictional,[8] and to change the corporate name mid-season to "Weigert."[9]) Ecumena's choice to head St. Eligius, Dr. John Gideon, mixed like oil and water with the St. Eligius staff, especially Dr. Westphall, who, in the final scene of this episode (and Ed Flanders's last moment as a St. Elsewhere series regular), delivers his resignation "in terms you can understand"—by dropping his pants and exposing his bare buttocks to Gideon ("You can kiss my ass, pal"). This scene, which would normally be considered controversial, was preserved by NBC's censors as they did not consider Westphall's display to be erotic in nature.[10]
What a fantastic 2020 season thread title.The Cleveland Browns - Failure is All of the Options
Hey the show aired 1982-1988, what could possibly be hipper than a 35-year-old reference to an obscure show that almost nobody here is going to get?Love the St. Elsewhere reference, tho I don't remember the specifics.
Yep, this is dumb. Involve analytics Monday / Tuesday. Friday / Saturday is too late. "Uh, guys, I know we practiced getting matchups with our tight end on the linebacker all week, but analytics says we should throw to our #2 WR instead so never mind what we practiced."Love the St. Elsewhere reference, tho I don't remember the specifics.
On further thought, that makes no sense, especially since coaches develop game plan by Tues night and players get them on Weds, and practice to them Weds-Thurs. What can happen Friday to change that?
And Haslam never has to make this choice. He gets Rich no matter what, even if he is a terrible King. Make these owners suffer in the pocketbook for being crappy year after year and you might see the lousy owners make smarter decisions.In startup parlance, when a founder reaches a crossroads where the organization has outgrown his particular skillset and calling and needs different leadership to continue growing, and investors recommend that he give up operational control (but not equity - he can still enjoy the financial gains), it's called a "Rich vs King" decision. i.e., which would you rather be: Rich, or King? Pick one.
Hey now....those years are also known as "the prime of my life." And the show was far more "groundbreaking" than "obscure." (Youd know that if you were old.)What a fantastic 2020 season thread title.
In startup parlance, when a founder reaches a crossroads where the organization has outgrown his particular skillset and calling and needs different leadership to continue growing, and investors recommend that he give up operational control (but not equity - he can still enjoy the financial gains), it's called a "Rich vs King" decision. i.e., which would you rather be: Rich, or King? Pick one.
Jimmy Haslam III (let's remember that he inherited the team from daddy) has chosen "tinpot dictator" for 20 years, despite being repeatedly presented with the choice again and again and also the consequences of his wrong choice. Romeo Crennel and Butch Davis brought him all the way to mediocrity, but lately it seems even that's too much to aspire to. Best seasons since the Browns' re-founding in 1999:
Hey the show aired 1982-1988, what could possibly be hipper than a 35-year-old reference to an obscure show that almost nobody here is going to get?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogKqQc4q6y0Hey now....those years are also known as "the prime of my life." And the show was far more "groundbreaking" than "obscure." (Youd know that if you were old.)
But to your point....the Rich/King decision is spot on with Haslam. He came from outside football, but with so many teams run -- or soon to be run -- by children of significant owners, it's probably applicable to the likes of Mike Brown, too.
I think it's possible that some team will figure out a way to essentially head coach by committee in a way that leads to success. (Though, like everything in the NFL, it won't make a bit of difference without a very good QB.) Might the Browns be on to it? We'll see.Are the Browns wrong? McDaniels as a head coach is most known for drafting Tim Tebow in the first round. He wasn't good in Denver and he was capricious at best in last year's dance with the Colts. The NFL is full of guys who are great coordinators but lousy head coaches (Wade Phillips, Norv Turner, etc.). Less so guys like BB who were great HCs after being fired elsewhere. And BB's track record is not exactly great in grooming good HCs.
I have no idea if the Browns are ahead of the curve here, or are morons. But good for them for sticking to their plan and giving it a shot.
I get the sense that the pre-existing GM isn’t is his preferred setup.It makes a lot of sense for McDaniels to wait until he gets a job on his terms. He's young, has time, has a steady gig, will have other offers, but the next HC job might be his last chance to succeed in that role. The Browns job is also tough because you have two relatively stable franchises in the division....plus the Bengals and they are getting Burrow. I'd put the over/under on playoff wins by the Browns over the next five years at about 1.5.
I wonder if he would have taken the NYG job or the Dallas job.
I disagree with the bolded part, at least for someone as financially secure as McD. But I agree the decision to pass on Indy was curious, unless you think he had an inking that Luck would retire young (and I can’t imagine he did).Looks like the opportunities are passing on him. He should have taken the Indy job unless it is 100% certain he’s BB’s heir apparent. You always take the HC job when it’s available to you.
He didn’t work for the Vikings?View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1216788319692034049
Getting more obvious by the day why Josh wasn't the right fit...
Randy Lerner was the 2nd generation Browns owner who hired Butch Davis and Romeo Crennel. When it comes to the Browns, Haslam is a self-made mess.In startup parlance, when a founder reaches a crossroads where the organization has outgrown his particular skillset and calling and needs different leadership to continue growing, and investors recommend that he give up operational control (but not equity - he can still enjoy the financial gains), it's called a "Rich vs King" decision. i.e., which would you rather be: Rich, or King? Pick one.
Jimmy Haslam III (let's remember that he inherited the team from daddy) has chosen "tinpot dictator" for 20 years, despite being repeatedly presented with the choice again and again and also the consequences of his wrong choice. Romeo Crennel and Butch Davis brought him all the way to mediocrity, but lately it seems even that's too much to aspire to.
I feel like he gets points around the league for putting up with Jerry. I don't know that his record, and general absence from the playoffs are enough to have gotten him another head coaching gig. It's not like he got 2 years to show his value - he had an extended run. Now if he sets the world on fire with the Giants and they become an offensive powerhouse or something, then I think he gets another shot.Dude was a head coach for ten years, and he immediately takes a job as OC within his old division? He probably would have had a head coaching opportunity at some point in the next year, right?
To be clear, I didn't think he was a good coach, but figured he would get another opportunity soon.
He is #54 on the all time wins list. Think about that. Think about how many coaches there have been in NFL history.I feel like he gets points around the league for putting up with Jerry. I don't know that his record, and general absence from the playoffs are enough to have gotten him another head coaching gig. It's not like he got 2 years to show his value - he had an extended run. Now if he sets the world on fire with the Giants and they become an offensive powerhouse or something, then I think he gets another shot.
Yes, that is impressive. But in my mind, that's a function of being able to withstand Jerry's crap more so than wizardry on his part. I feel like if you take any of the top 10 coaches in the NFL (your picks, not mine), hand them the Cowboys talent, they'd have a better record - and more playoff games. With the offensive lines they've had, the skill positions they've had, the QB talent they've had (all at the same time for the most part), as a team they have under performed to my liking. I can't think how many times I saw them fall just short, and thought to myself "feels like they've turned a corner - they are going to be tough next year". And the next year, and the next year...He is #54 on the all time wins list. Think about that. Think about how many coaches there have been in NFL history.
Look I don’t think he’s a great coach either. He may not even be an average coach. But it’s hard to win more games than you lose as a 10 year coach in the NFL. It’s fairly rare company.Yes, that is impressive. But in my mind, that's a function of being able to withstand Jerry's crap more so than wizardry on his part. I feel like if you take any of the top 10 coaches in the NFL (your picks, not mine), hand them the Cowboys talent, they'd have a better record - and more playoff games. With the offensive lines they've had, the skill positions they've had, the QB talent they've had (all at the same time for the most part), as a team they have under performed to my liking. I can't think how many times I saw them fall just short, and thought to myself "feels like they've turned a corner - they are going to be tough next year". And the next year, and the next year...
Now, I'm not blaming him for all of that, because if one could take the same vacuum I'm offering these top 10 coaches and hand it to Jason (without Jerry over his shoulder), maybe he does better as well. But I just don't see it.
That's my point though, those are probably underwhelming counting stats for a team with the talent they've had.Look I don’t think he’s a great coach either. He may not even be an average coach. But it’s hard to win more games than you lose as a 10 year coach in the NFL. It’s fairly rare company.