First and 10
1) I'm of the understanding that Derek Anderson starts Sunday's game in Cincinnati. Not a lot of thought at all to starting Brady Quinn. I don't know what the leanings are if Anderson falters, so we'll see what happens. But the Browns aren't really going into this game with the idea that Anderson will falter.
2) I'm also of the understanding that though nobody is happy with the way the Browns are playing, Romeo Crennel's job is not in danger.
3) Nobody seems to like that fact. But it's a fact. Cleveland sure seems to be a town that turns in a hurry. Either that or the angry minority is very vocal. There's no justifying the way the Browns have played, and I won't try. But changing the coach is not going to make them play better just because he's changed. Yes, there were some questionable field goal decisions in the first few games, and yes at times Crennel's lack of emotion works against him. But the Browns did have a good first half Sunday. The game turned on two Derek Anderson interceptions, both plays coming from standout Ravens defenders (Ed Reed and Ray Lewis). Some might argue that at times like these, when everyone is smelling blood and crying foul, the calm, same-as-ever approach of Crennel might come in handy. That approach helped after the opener last season when everyone (including me) was screaming and yelling. Maybe it will help this season. We shall see.
4) As for Anderson starting over Brady Quinn, this statement to me seems to make it evident why Crennel will go with Anderson. Referring to Quinn, Crennel said: "If we decided to go with him, we'd just have to put it on the fact that what we've seen in practice and what we feel that he's able to do because there's no hard evidence that he would have success." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement that changing the quarterback will help win the game. And that is the idea – winning the game on Sunday. Based on that statement, it seems that the only reason the Browns would change the quarterback would be because they can.
5) If the Browns win Sunday in Cincinnati (HEY … stop laughing) they have a bye week to then get healthy and get their bearings back. Then they play the Giants, at home, on a Monday night. Tough game. Very tough game. But if they somehow win the Browns will be 2-3, which is pretty much at or near where they were expected to be. First comes Cincinnati, though, and the Browns absolutely, positively, without a doubt must win to have any hope of salvaging a season.
6) Since 1990, ninety teams have started 0-3. Three of those teams made the playoffs. That's 3.3 percent. Which means the Browns have a 3.3 percent chance of making the playoffs. Not high, but somebody has to be in that 3.3 percent, right?
7) OK, someday the cow might actually jump over the moon. But don't the Browns have to think that way? Yes, this may be Pollyanna, rose-colored glasses and all that … especially given some of the opinions I've stated on this team. But it's hard to believe the Browns are actually as bad as they've looked, and it's hard to believe they will not play a good game at some point this season.
8) Jamal Lewis had a valid complaint about not running the ball enough in Baltimore, but that game plan in no way equates to the one last season in Cincinnati when the Browns threw 49 times in swirling winds. Let's look at the facts. Up 10-7, the Browns took the second half kickoff and threw three short passes in a row – the third turned into an interception thanks to Ray Lewis' hit. The short passing game worked in the first half; it led to the lead. But Lewis' hit forced a turnover that led to Baltimore taking a 14-10 lead. The Browns then ran once, threw incomplete once on a short pass and at third-and-6 Anderson threw his worst pass of the day, the Ed Reed interception. Baltimore led 21-10. The Browns then ran Jamal Lewis for nine yards and Lewis for three and a first down. At this point, the game was very winnable. But Braylon Edwards made a ridiculous block in the back that negated the first down. A delay followed, which made it second-and-13, then third-and-13. They passed, then punted, then Mike Adams gave the Ravens 15 yards with a ridiculous personal foul, which gave them a short field to take a 28-10 lead. At that point, the Browns turned to the pass. But … when the game was close there were runs called. It's just that the Browns did foolish things when they did get positive gains and they could not sustain any kind of drive, which will limit the number of runs. This was not a case of bad play-calling, but bad playing, and that did the Browns in.
9) That being said, if ever a week called for a team to return to bread-and-butter basics, this is it. The Bengals run defense is actually worse than the Browns. Cincinnati is giving up 174.3 yards per game, 4.7 yards per carry. The Giants ran for 117 yards, Tennessee for 177 and Baltimore for 229. If the Browns want to regain their offensive footing, this is the week to go back to pounding Lewis up the middle. If he does not leave the game with 25 carries, the Browns have something in their Cheerios.
10) I've been as hard as anyone on Edwards this year, and one good example why is that block-in-the-back penalty. It was a killer. And there was no reason for it. It was just ridiculous (did we mention it was ridiculous?). A coach can teach and coach and preach and threaten all he wants, but if his players commit penalties like that one (and like Adams' personal foul) the coach may as well be talking about Parcheesi. Because if the players don't listen, it doesn't matter.
You're An Idiot
Alan, one of my regular commenters/tormentors on this flog, asked last week: "Why has the previously promised weekly ‘You Are An Idiot' portion of First and 10 failed to appear? Much like the Browns, I guess your unfulfilled promise was nothing but hype."
Quite frankly Alan, it did not appear because nobody was calling me an idiot.
I call that "reader oversight."
Ted did write and say this, though: "Pat, once again you are not an idiot; I am. For watching these Browns."
Three and Out
Dear Pat,
Romeo Crennel not only inherited a team that was in disarray, but also the decades of frustrations of fans who have been let down by three professional franchises. The irony is that these fans want to win now, but they want a new coach every few years. This means that a new scheme will have to be implemented, which and (if it does work) may not produce results for two-to-four years. People are stuck on a Super Bowl winning coaching coming in and setting up a Super Bowl winning franchise. I ask the fans, how many times in NFL history has this happened? In the last 20+ years it has only happened to Joe Gibbs. Even in his case, fans wondered if the game had passed him by before he won his second Super Bowl.
I guess I see Romeo's situation to be similar to several other coaches in the league.
I remember in the early to mid-90's when Cleveland fans said that Bill Belichick didn't have the demeanor to be a good head coach. He didn't express fire on the sidelines when mistakes were made. He couldn't motive players to play hard for him. Not to mention that he drove out a fan favorite. What changed? He tweaked his philosophy a bit when he got another chance as a head coach.
Tom Coughlin was under heavy fire after losing the first two games last year (not to mention people questioning Eli Manning). This was preceded by a year where the team underachieved and players questioned his coaching ability. They said he was too strict. What changed? He tweaked his coaching philosophy.
So now, Cleveland has a defensive minded coach who is being questioned by fans for the (lack of) defense. What Coach Dungy…wait, that was a Freudian slip because the same questions were asked of Tony Dungy before he won a Super Bowl. What Coach Crennel needs is …
-an attitude changing player on defense, like a Ray Lewis.
-a young secondary to mature
-a defense to tackle and make plays in general
- his back-up players to step up until the wounded players return.
-his star receiver to put aside his press clippings and life outside of football, and go out and just play.
-his quarterback to be confident in himself, to let the world know that he is the man for the job and to make better throws and decisions when the team needs him the most.
Crennel is not blameless in this. He needs to develop better discipline with his team. He needs to tweak his philosophy a bit before it is too late, just like the other students under Parcells.
I guess I believe Crennel can win because his players still want to play for him, and you have two Super Bowl winning coaches (Belichick and Parcells) who say he is a good coach and they believe in him.
As I tell fellow investors (all too often I guess), you can't set up a successful business overnight. There will be times of frustration, and many questions. It takes time, and there will be setbacks.
Thanks,
Will
Akron
Dear Will,
Good letter, however given the prevailing mood in town I think folks may be putting you in the "You're An Idiot" section with me. Be nice to have company!
Dear Pat,
Everything in your Monday article was dead on, but you missed one more thing that makes this kind of play even harder to take. In each of the three ridiculous losses so far, at some point in the game, while the Browns were being outplayed, outcoached, out-strengthed and out-finessed, one of the wannabes posed and primped on the field after making a routine play.
Where do you lay THAT? At Romeo's feet. Next to the horrendous play calling and players not knowing when they are supposed to be on the field. They looked like they ran the same play on 1st down 75% of the time. Anderson still looks at his receiver too long, but what's the difference when they drop the ball anyway.
It'll be 2-14. Write it down.
Eddie Vidmar
Dear Eddie,
The histrionics of players on the field has gotten to such absurd levels a guy can drop the ball at the 1-yard-line on Monday night football and it's hardly noticed.
There is such a "me" emphasis sometimes it's enough to make a person turn to soccer.
Dear Pat,
Enjoy your work. My question is, how would you rate the job Phil Savage has done? A team playing this bad can't simply be the head coach calling bad timeouts or not being emotional enough.
This team lacks talent on defense and its highly rated offensive line looks suspect. How many of Phil Savage's draft picks are in the NFL? His picks from the third round on have been shaky. It takes more than drafting No. 1 picks right to build a team. Oops looks like they haven't done that right either, (Kamerion Wimbley).
You can fire the head coach, and should fire the head coach, but this ORGANIZATION looks weak to me.
Eric Graham
Dear Eric,
As I've stated often, there is plenty of responsibility to be shared right now, and the head coach can't do much with receivers who are not threats, with immature stars and without a legitimate secondary. Think Carson Palmer isn't looking forward to Sunday?
(Want to be recognized in "Three and Out"? It's a rare treat. Comment here or send an e-mail to pmcmanamon@thebeaconjournal.com, and put "First and 10" in the subject line)
{ 8 comments }
Question: Why is this team (Crennel and Savage) so dead-set against giving Brady Quinn ANY playing time whatsoever? The fact that we are in his second full season and he has taken exactly 8 snaps is ludicrous. Baltimore, in contrast, is 2-0 with a freakin ROOKIE from Delaware. How did Derek Anderson suddenly emerge as the be-all, end-all quarterback? Are the officials afraid that if Brady gets in a game, he will play so well that Derek will never be allowed back on the field? I'm sure that's Derek's fear. Frankly, why Savage is so enamored with a guy so proned to interceptions and mistakes is befuddling, when we drafted a #1 guy who's just rotting away with a clipboard.
james, a question mark ending a sentence starting with "why" is sufficient. no need to preface a question with "question:".
i've been done with romeo since the end of year 2. last year was a fluke. and if romeo was a good coach they probably make the playoffs. so what you are telling me pat is that we are probably stuck with this joke of a coach. great! cleveland browns football is an nfl joke. a labor stoppage in a few years may be just what this team needs. in cleveland, no football may be better than what this team puts on the field.
fire romeo now!
Why are we starting Anderson yet another week?
It seems to be that he is either in some kind of funk or is just having a horrible start. How can we play him after three poor performances already?
Give Brady a shot. He can't be any worse.
Regular reader, yes. Tormentor, no. Indeed, Rick Redfern, my favorite Doonesbury character of all-time, has just been laid off by the Washington Post. Honestly, everytime I read the strip over the course of the past few weeks, I thought "Pat." Really. Not that the Beacon Journal will ever get remotely close to being the Washington Post, or even Post Grape Nuts. But you get the idea.
Browns-wise, why has Savage gotten the standard local media Danny Ferry kid gloves treatment, both from this scribe and from others? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Savage construct this team? Didn't Savage hire the head coach that everybody is ragging on? When Savage won his power struggle with John Collins, everybody in the local media said this was a major victory for Browns football. Why isn't anybody taking any shots at Savage?
Answer: They are not dead set against Brady Quinn starting, in fact Savage used up a first and second round pick in hopes that he would do just that. His reputation is on the line. If you get a backup QB off waivers like Anderson you have done a great job. If you waste a first and second on a QB that can not start you have done a bad job. So Savage has every reason to want Quinn to start. The problem is they see him every day in practice and watched him in preseason games. That is why he is not starting. Plus they got a glimpse of what the Browns could do with Anderson starting. I should not have to remind you of what a QB without time to throw and without wide receivers looks like no matter how good the QB. We have even seen the great and future HOF Peyton Manning look like crap when put in that situation throwing 6 interceptions last year and going 1-2 this year. With three of our four WR out injured and the only good one dropping passes left and right there is little chance of this offense moving no matter which HOF QB you could bring back and start. People do not want to talk about injuries, excuses are not allowed. But to pretend this team is as good with waiver wire level WR instead of Donte and JJ is foolish. To think the blocking is as good without Tucker and Steinbach again is ignoring reality.
The huge failures in training camp to get this team ready complicated by injuries then insulted by head coaching decisions has put the team on life support. This team can still be very good after the bye week if players return and play as they should based on their talent. Of course that will be too late if the team is 0-4 and maybe too late if they are 1-3.
But the answer is of course Brady Quinn should not be the starter, he is not ready and probably not good enough or the first person that would insist he plays would be Savage. His reputation which has been hugely damaged, can not take another hit of Quinn being a waste of two high picks. If Quinn had shown any, and I do mean ANY ability to be a starter who can move a team he would be the starter even if Savage would have to trade Anderson to force Crennel's hand. We have seen he is willing to do that. But the fact is Quinn has been a flop, in preseason games, in camp and in practices since. That is the only reason he is not starting.
And BTW the first sign of a know nothing fan is saying, make a change it could not be worse.
Excellent remarks, Bubba. What you might also have included are the remarks attributed to Tony Romo (or was it Aaron Rodgers, his Sunday night counterpart?) who opined that the patient manner in which he was brought along before being asked to assume the mantel of full-time NFL QB starter was the correct and proper way to do it. He attributed his successful transition to that mode of development.
As for Savage, his draft work has not been good. Period. One should certainly expect a professional to make hay with the third-overall selection, which he did twice in the persons of Edwards and Thomas. But one should also expect a guy to cash in on high number-twos. Phil has blundered both Pool and D'Qwell. Neither is an impact guy, though both their positions begged for one to step forward. Meanwhile, impact players—even impact defenders!—remained on the board at the time of their selections.
Going any deeper into any of his draft classes—save perhaps the twin CBs Wright and McDonald—reveals a guy who might as well have employed darts and a board.
Considering how needy was the roster he inherited and how highly he was picking in each round, his work has been horrendous!
What is more, while he has protected his "record" by carrying his draft errors longer than deserving, who is to say he didn't miss out on several opportunities to enhance personnel with guys who could actually play the sport? To be clear, instead of offering roster spots to waiver-wire discards with genuine potential, he clung to his mistaken choices—not because they could play, but because releasing them would be acknowledging, announcing and moving forward from a personal mistake.
Unless the injury is a star quarterback or a star running back, the injury excuses grow tired. Everybody has injuries every season, and none of the Browns guys with boo-boos are future Hall of Fame material, let alone even current Pro Bowl material. Stop the silliness about injuries, everybody has them. Sure, it would be peachy if LeCharles Bentley (who names their kid "LeCharles?) was playing, but he's not. Please, cut the apologist crap about injuries being a "contributing factor." Call a spade a spade.
Wasn't all the hype about Savage, when he came from Baltimore, that his strongest suit was talent evaluation? I guess that 72-71-1 record while Savage was in Baltimore was actually a mirror of his underlying skills, and perhaps he's really not as savvy as he initially was made out to be. There are many examples of questionable decisions, but one that seems fairly representative of his tenure is this blob Shaun Rogers. Does anybody really think this big fat pig, a guy coming off a drug suspension and a sexual assault charge with a stripper, is going to last beyond next season? But Savage pawned away a third-round choice and somebody who would come in handy in a putrid secondary in exchange for a bad news Oprah Winfrey look-alike on borrowed time? Granted, NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, but still, that personnel move just reeked of desperation, ignorance, or both.
I still think it's too soon to call this season over, but I don't think it's too early to say this Savage guy seems too much like Danny Ferry. A bonehead who screws the season-ticket holders and requires too many years of job experience under his belt before he finally begins to "get it." They may eventually get good under Savage's front office guidance, but perhaps hiring somebody with more experience in the first place wouldn't have been such a bad idea. But then again, when you inherit as much filthy cash as Lerner did, I guess dancing around in his cute little English football/soccer club shorts is just as important to him as what's stumbling around in a gifted taxpayer-funded stadium next to a lake.
By the way, don't billionaires have enough money to do something to stall an accelerated aging process? What's going on with the mutant DNA in this guy? Lerner is in his 40s, but his head looks like it belongs on Grandpa Simpson.
Comments on this entry are closed.