It’s difficult to explain why a news-less news conference can be exciting unless you’ve lived the Cleveland Browns day in and day out the past 11 or so years. And yes, I know many of you have lived it with me. Good Lord have we lived it.
The Browns have had coaches. They’ve had General Managers. They’ve even had Presidents. Each and every one tried in their own way. Dwight Clark looks like a genius compared to much of what we’ve been through. Think about it – everyone rips him but he signed four offensive linemen before the first game (Jim Pyne, Lomas Brown, Orlando Brown and Dave Wohlabaugh), drafted a quarterback and had some pretty good receivers on the team. It didn’t work out, but not for lack of effort or care.
Alas, I digress.
Never has there been a pure football guy at the top to voice the direction, goals and focus of the team. Carmen Policy was a leader, but he admitted he didn’t know football. Mike Holmgren is a leader and a football guy. He oozes leadership and confidence without being smug or overdone about it.
As my good friend Steve King wrote on the Orange and Brown Report: “…after 11 long years of the long-suffering expansion era, these new Browns have someone who is able to espouse a message, is allowed to do so, is willing to do so, and is very, very good at it.”
King continued (it was originally part of the OBR’s Insiders site, which I highly recommend subscribing to):
“(Holmgren) speaks English. He’s not condescending. He doesn’t mumble. He doesn’t give an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. He smiles. He jokes. He laughs. He speaks loud enough for those of us with hearing problems to be able to understand. He has a personality. He’s honest and forthright. Can we clone this guy? A bunch of times?”
Do not underestimate the ability of people in charge to communicate. If a guy has trouble communicating to the media, he has trouble communicating to his team. Too, I’ve learned from some very good professionals in the NFL that every time a coach speaks after a game or during the week, he’s speaking to the fans and the team as well as the media. Jimmy Johnson used to make a point to say he was talking to his team through the media. If a coach or GM or leader is incoherent, implausible, lacks sense … well it’s not just the media wondering what they just heard. The people who follow him notice that as well. Chris Palmer meant no harm when he made his now famous “runaway train” statement – all he was saying was once the season started it’s hard to change directions – but it came across the wrong way and it affected his status with the front office.
Brian Billick told me once that he was advised early in his career that every time the TV camera shows a coach during a game, people notice his demeanor. If he looks defeated or bored, that will carry through the screen and people will wonder how he can be defeated or bored. One of the league’s best PR reps told me that a coach who thinks he has to be emotion-less after a loss isn’t recognizing that the fans see him and wonder how he can be so placid when his team is losing. They want him to be excited when he wins, upset or disappointed when he loses. He doesn’t have to overdo it – “Playoffs???” – but it helps the fans to see his emotions, because it helps the fans identify with the coach and helps the coach identify with the fans.
Communication is vital, and in this age of instant news on the internet, It might be more vital than ever that a team gets its message across the right way. Consider the number of times we’ve heard a Browns official say something and we’ve walked away scratching our head and saying “huh?” If that happens with Holmgren it will be on a very rare occasion. And if he does something that doesn’t work, he’ll stand up and say he made a mistake. He is that on tune – with people and football, which is vital.
How many coaches have the security to talk about wanting everyone to leave his office after a Super Bowl win so he could reflect quietly? How many have the courage to say they are going to ask for wisdom and discernment on a daily basis? And how many handle the delicate nature of a coach’s future so well? Holmgren described his plan to meet with Eric Mangini, then said a couple times: Let this play out, to be fair to everyone.
Meaning fair to Mangini … who deserves that kind of fairness and consideration. Holmgren and Mangini deserve to talk without any more public debate about future. Let Holmgren work it out; if we can’t trust him, well then we have real trouble. I may not have agreed with everything Mangini did, but he did his best and worked his hardest and he deserves the human consideration that Holmgren is giving him.
Holmgren brings so many intangible positives. He’s connected with the league in a unique way, and knows the rules back and forth. He’s connected with the right people. Already, one very qualified and talented General Manager candidate will interview (Tom Heckert) when he wouldn’t a year ago. It’s not a coincidence.
More qualified ones will interview, and I’d be shocked if Will Lewis of Seattle and Reggie McKenzie of Green Bay do not . Both are viable candidates. Holmgren commands that kind of attention.
Holmgren will be able to step into voids the Browns have not been able to fill. He can voice the administration and the team’s purpose, while being smart enough to take a backseat to the coach when he knows he should.
But the most important thing he will do is ask “why?” If he sees something goofy going on, he’ll ask why. It might have to do with football, it might not. But he’ll ask, “Why are we doing this?’ And if it seems like it shouldn’t be done he’ll say, ‘Let’s not do it that way anymore.’
This absence has caused many, many problems with the Browns – perceived and real.
I will be the first to say that none of this adds up to wins. Right evaluations must be made, proper decisions must be carried through. All the wisdom in the world won’t make a team good when it lacks players and coaching. Going (Lady) ga-ga over a news conference won’t help Brandon McDonald cover anyone.
But Holmgren’s presence, leadership and direction, and the ability to voice those elements, have been missing from the Browns. Holmgren brings it – along with some exceedingly good values.
That’s one heck of a starting point. I do not believe I’m overstating it when I say for the first time in a long time it seems like we can be genuinely excited about the team.
Hitting the nail on the head: well done!
Mancrush alert.
Actually I was excited about the team three weeks ago and still am.
Pat,
I agree with Elizabeth. I listened on 850AM, and was sending excited texts/phone calls. Finally, someone that is honest: answers a question when asked, and when he won't answer a question, he gives a valid reason as to why he won't.
As a fan of the Browns, I live in my own little world. Not really paying attention to other teams and their organizations. But over the past few days with all the hub bub over Holmgren and articles written about the duties of Presidents and General Managers vs the duties that Mangini had to tackle this year, this truly seems to be a very important part of the organization that we have been missing. I certainly hope that Holmgren provides that steady hand that you have described because we certainly can use it.
The Browns may actually have an adult in the building! Happy Days!
And one with his ego in check. Ever since Schottenheimer wanted full control and all his kin on staff, the Browns have been going down hill. Marty's ego, Belicheck's, Butch Davis', Phil Savage's and this year with Mangini's. No more "Little Kingdoms" to take precedent over the whole organization moving in unison and in one direction.
Of course, every off-season is always a hopeful one — but I really mean it this time!! LOL
"If a guy has trouble communicating to the media, he has trouble communicating to his team."
And this is based on what scientific research? I have trouble communicating with my wife, but I'm pretty good at my job.
C'mon, Pat. What you meant to say was "Mangini is mean and makes my job tougher, so he deserves to go". Does the New England media think Bill Belichick has trouble communicating with his team because he's non-communicative with them? And do they think it has kept the team from being successful?
I think I just felt a tingle up my leg, Pat!
Boy, my upper inner thigh is getting tingly, too. It's not from the wind-chill.
The larger question is will Pat's head explode if he has to cover an organization led by Holmgren yet coached by Mangini?
"If a guy has trouble communicating to the media, he has trouble communicating to his team."
And this is based on what scientific research? I have trouble communicating with my wife, but I'm pretty good at my job.
how about based on what a handful of jets players had to say when mangini got kicked out on his rear?
as david porter once said, "i'm afraid the masquerade is over". after reading holmgren's comments i don't see him keeping fredo around. if he does, eric will be returning to his job minus his gonads.
thanks alan, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
With what I was reading all over last night and my own impressions, I was wondering why we always believe so easily? And I'm not cynical as I ask that since I do believe … again. I suppose it's "fan"-short-for-"fanatic" — like even as the Browns were going 1-11 and I could see how silly the local sports celebrity game predictions of Browns losing, like 30 to 24, when predicting the Browns getting 6 points on 2 field goals would be a more realistic prediction, I still watching the game with hope of an interception or a missed tackle or a kick return or fumbles and the Browns somehow winning. Fan.
Still, I believe — and think Holmgren is laid back in the right way, not like Audie Murphy standing alone against a whole Panzer division (which is what Crennel and Mangini look like on the sideline), but like somebody who is thinking and planning and making adjustments. I hope that what he brings to the Browns is a whole army of like-minded coaches and executives.
You know, all this Belichik tree people imitate his hoodie style, but fail in his ability to lay it all out game after game for his coaches who then do the communicating with the players (and don't have going for them that whatever kind of a jerk he might be personally, he wins and the players know that).
Well, so does Holmgren ….
Keith,
I'm a big fan of stream of consciousness writing too!
Good for you, Brian. That's how Bon Scott met his maker.
alan….You may have crabs or lice crawling over you. Get out of the basement and take your yearly hose down.
The great irony in rock 'n roll: Bon Scott and John Bonham were friends, and drank together all of the time.
While nothing I saw yesterday proved to me that Mike Holmgren will be as good at running an organization as he was at coaching a team, everything I saw yesterday added up to something we haven't seen in Cleveland in my lifetime: sense and sensibility (thanks Ms. Austen).
It's a gigantic first step, and thank goodness for it. For the first time ever I have optimism in my heart. Now I just want to sit back and see what decisions Mike Holmgren makes. Hopefully it starts with, ". . .has been relieved of his duties as coach of the Cleveland Browns," but, like Pat, I will give EM the benefit of the doubt if Holmgren does (although a small part of my brain will believe that Mangini staying will mean that Holmgren will be coaching again soon).
But I still think Carl Smith really missed it.
"as david porter once said, "i'm afraid the masquerade is over"
Nice one, terje.
I'll bet that was lost on 90% of the people here.
As for Holmgren, I'm all in like Pat. If he can't bring sanity and a capable GM to Berea, then it's not gonna happen this decade. I also agree with those who found his news conference refreshing. I think he will represent the team and city very capably.
Since there is only one year left in this decade, Ralph, that is sort of self evident, ain't it?
Check yer decade groupings Miguel, 2010 is the start of the second decade of this century.
Nope. Decades start with a number that ends with a 1, Ralph. The calender didn't start with year zero. It started with year one. Thus, the end of the first decade was at the end of year 10, not year 9. Thus each decade begins with a one.
I know this might be confusing for anyone who depends on movie and television critics for their educational information (Best of the Decade lists, and all that), but it is true. Perhaps you should check the groupings out yourself before calling me out on this one, Ralphie boy.
Just a question in general to all: Do you think back in the day people were bitching at each other about when to say that the first decade ended? Do you think some git was out there trying to persuade everyone that the first decade ended at the end of year 9?
I'm not sure many folks knew it was the year 9 in the year 9. The apostles probably hadn't made enough headway, yet.
Good point, Larry. But if anyone were to argue about something like this, it would have been the apostles. Peter especially liked to get the last word in. And they sure could argue like cats and dogs. God knows (no pun intended) that they went in some very different directions post-crucifixion.
I blame it all on the millennium. People got so obsessed with rolling into 2000 that reality went out the window (like the reality of the new millennium not actually starting until 2001—hence the name of Clarke's book and Kubrick's movie). It's sort of like the people who like to think popular usage defines correctness in grammar, ain't it?
Hey, if everyone thinks it is so, then it must be so. Right?
Or am I confusing that with WMD's in Iraq?
JERRY: By the way Newman, I'm just curious. When you booked the hotel, did you
book it for the millennium New Year?
NEWMAN: As a matter of fact, I did.
JERRY: Oh, that's interesting, because as everyone knows, since there was no
year zero, the millennium doesn't begin until the year two-thousand and one.
Which would make your party, one year late, and thus, quite lame.