It tries to be balanced, and includes the following nuggets:

“… the success (Rex) Ryan has had in galvanizing this team is so dramatic in large part because of the disconnect between his unpopular predecessor and the Jets. In many ways, Mangini made the Cult of Rex possible.”

And this from Damien Woody: “(Mangini) played an integral part in constructing this football team. Rex just took it to a whole different level.”

And finally: “Maybe Ryan’s success and the Jets’ run will serve as a lesson for future NFL head coaches, that they don’t have to act like they’re protecting national security secrets instead of just coaching a game.”

It’s well worth a read, becuase it has some good points.

But I also think this canonization of Rex Ryan has gone a bit too far. The Jets took the back door into the playoffs thanks to Indianapolis and Cincinnati packing it in, then played well in winning two games. Ryan wins two more games, OK, we'll canonize. But let's see what happens.

I love every one of you, in a non-man-crush kind of way.

I respect all your opinions.

I respect all the people who disagreed with my view of Eric Mangini.

I really and truly do. Free-thinking people can have honest differences of opinion.

But I think it's time that those of you who relate everything I write to Mangini call a halt. It's just getting tired.

The latest example: The Browns cleaned out their pro personnel department this week and a loyal and kind reader related it to Mangini and asked why I did not criticize the Browns.

Please.

This happens when a GM hire is made. It's no different than Mangini cleaning out the coaching staff when he was hired last year. Good coaches were let go, but that's what happens.

At the time, I did not criticize Mangini.

The only time I criticized the Browns about letting people go was when they laid people off who were support staff, people who made far, far less than any coach.

And I criticized the Browns for that, not Mangini. Those were not Mangini's decisions. I did find it odd — and still do — that the Browns would spend millions to re-do a building when they are laying people off. So I was critical. Maybe I'm weird, but it seemed like that money could have saved jobs instead of going to putting plaster-board over cinderblock. That was merely my opinion.

Alas I digress.

In the past six or seven weeks, I've tried to back off being overly negative about Mangini. You may disagree whether I succeeded in that regard, but I tried.

Here's the bottom line: As a columnist, I am paid to have an opinion. I am not paid to waffle. I am paid to have a strong opinion, and then state it as clearly as I can.

I've said many, many times that I'm not guaranteed to be right just because I have an opinion and a laptop. Mike Holmgren, a man I respect greatly, has made a decision. I accept it, move on and quite frankly hope that I was wrong.

Because if I was wrong, Mangini will succeed and the Browns will do well. There are people in the NFL whom I respect who thought I was wrong. I get that. I could well have been wrong. If so I freely admit it. It wasn't the first time, nor will it be the last.

I feel nothing personal one way or the other about Mangini — except that I truly hope he succeeds. Because if he succeeds the Browns succeed and I can write about normal football stuff instead of the nonsense that has gone on here the past number of years.

At this point, I've got to do the same thing with the Browns that I did with Mangini, assess the moves and decisions, see if they make sense and then state whether I agree or disagree based on amassing as much information as I can about the moves.

It's kind of the job description of a columnist.

But we have reached the point here where folks will relate it to Mangini if I write about a tiddly-winks tournament. "Why didn't you rip THAT guy for not making the yellow tiddly-wink. You'd have ripped Maningini!"

It's just silly.

Dare I point out that nobody is forcing anyone to read this blog, and that the price to read it is pretty good. This is not curing cancer, not saving victims in Haiti. It's my opinion, and I hope it's fun to stop by now and then and read and take part.

I have enjoyed the blog much more than I ever dreamt I would, and I hope you do as well.

But I'm over the fact that a good football man has decided Mangini should stay. At this point, it's all about 2010.

I understand that right now I look stupid.

But also understand I don't need to write about the Browns or their coach to look stupid. I can do that on my own, thank you very much.

I'm over it.

I think it's time we all move on as well.

Your devoted crogger,

Pat

He's proven that already by hiring a reputable General Manager in Tom Heckert and by explaining his decision to keep Eric Mangini. Asked on a conference call Monday about retaining Mangini, Holmgren explained it logically and clearly and sensibly.

Holmgren said to come and make a change would have been the easy thing to do. He based his decision to keep Mangini on three factors.

First: "I think having a coach in place for a year and then telling him he no longer has a job, I think that’s basically unfair …"

Second: "I think the team got better as the season went along, by anyone’s standards.  It was rough in the beginning. It was kind of tough in the middle, but they finished strong and that says something about how he kept the guys together and how his coaches continued to work and those things …"

Third: "I liked him.  I liked our talks. I think he was very candid, very honest.  He also listened.  I thought he was a pretty good listener with me."

Anything else: "Lastly, he’s a defensive coach.  In this particular division I think you need to play really good defense when the weather gets bad.  I should culminate with saying that he showed a willingness to work as a team player.  I think he was thrust into a position where he had to accept a lot more responsibility than was fair, through no fault of his own.  I thought I could act as a little bit of a mentor in some ways.  [You] put all that stuff together, I thought I had the right guy."

As I said, logical, clear, sensible.

The team confirmed the first major decision of Mike Holmgren's tenure as team president just before 4 p.m. on Thursday.

No time for me to comment at this moment; I must columnize for the Beacon Journal.

So I invite you to have at it here.

1)      Mangini made his case the final four games that he can make things work if he's left to coaching the football team only. Mangini clearly should not lead an entire organization and direct everything. When it came to purely coaching in the last month, the Browns did many good things. Starting with winning four games in a row. Developing the running game. Improving the defense. Recognizing the talent in a guy like linebacker Matt Roth. Mangini actually went from a total disaster of a season — the Browns had never been 1-11 — to making a person step back and wonder if a Holmgren/GM/Mangini troika with clearly defined duties might just work.

2)      The negatives are also clear. The constant early turmoil. The 1-11 start. The early- and mid-season losses by 20 or more points to Denver, Baltimore, Green Bay, Chicago. The other one-sided defeats to Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and San Diego. The fact that the defense gave up 27 or more points in eight of the 16 games. The timeout decisions against Cincinnati (botched) and Detroit (a tad more justified, but it sure hurt). Bill Parcells' always says a team is its record, and the Browns are 5-11. They rank 32nd in total offense, 31st in total defense and 29th in turnover differential. There were complaints from players about long practices and complaints from the coach about Detroit faking injuries. There also was the whining over a proper pass interference call in Detroit and the George Kokinis fiasco — a fiasco Holmgren must get his mitts around before moving forward. In the Browns 11 losses, their average margin of defeat was 15 points. Those are the total-picture realities that Holmgren cannot ignore.

3)      The players played hard the final month, but I'm not buying they played hard for their coach. Too many of them privately were telling friends and associates that they were frustrated with the approach and weary of the negativity and mental stress brought on by the approach. It wasn't merely long practices. It was the constant negativity that beats people down. The feeling in the locker room the day after the game was a combination of pride to end on winning notes and relief that everything was over. The phrase that kept flashing through my mind was one I heard way back in training camp from a very keen NFL type: Right approach, wrong guy.

4)      I've written several times this season that people have told me that the private Mangini is far different from the public one. That in private he's engaging, humorous and personable. This came across in his midseason interview with Clark Judge and in his final-game news conference after the win over Jacksonville. I have to assume this is true, given I heard it from so many people. But the one thing that I can't ignore is that Mangini did not start to change publicly until Bernie Kosar had been brought in as a consultant and until Randy Lerner made it clear he was going to bring in a credible leader to run football. At that point, it was evident Mangini's power base was eroding, and with each loss his security base also was eroding. He seemed to change at that point, and so did the team. It could have been coincidence. It could well be that at the same time that the "czar" (I hate that word) search began, the team started to "get it" and Mangini relaxed and decided to be more himself. That is what Holmgren must decide.

5)      Whatever happens, the Browns must deal with the reality that 2011 could include a lockout of players by owners. Already owners have generated quite a fund to protect themselves and they also are writing protections in some contracts with coaches that would only require them to pay a percentage of the salary due if there is a lockout. The general thinking is the owners are serious this time, though they've been serious in the past and not followed through. The free agent status of some key Browns — including Roth, RB Jerome Harrison and FB Lawrence Vickers — might not be known until March 5. Because if no new CBA is ratified by that point, new free agent rules will kick in, and those three guys will be among those affected. All will become restricted free agents instead of unrestricted, and their ability to test the market will be curtailed. The last time the league and players union negotiated a new CBA, there were two extensions of the deadline to get a deal done. Owners are talking tough this time, so a new CBA might not be ratified prior to free agency, which would make 2010 an uncapped year.

6)      One thing that helped the run defense the end of the season was the addition of Roth. He's a strong, gnarly guy who can stand up on the edge and keep teams from running in his direction. Roth's presence made a difference, and he was a very nice pickup. Give credit to Mangini for claiming him. Oddity: Had the Browns won in Detroit, they'd not have been able to claim Roth, because Detroit would have been ahead of them in the pecking/waiver order.

7)      As strong as the running game turned out as the season progressed, the passing game was woeful. Weather conditions had much to do with that against Pittsburgh and Jacksonville, but the team's two quarterbacks hardly distinguished themselves. This is another interesting decision for Holmgren — how the Browns proceed at quarterback. Much, of course, depends on the coach.

8)      Here's a name to keep in mind for the coach … if Mangini is not retained: Carolina coach John Fox. Fox has one year left on his deal, and the Panthers have said they will keep him but will not extend his contract, which expires after next season. That brings a lot of uncertainty to his table, because if there's a lockout he will not be paid. Fox surely would want security, and he and Holmgren have the same agent: Bob Lamonte. I'd be more than happy with Fox. He's an experienced coach, a very good coach. And he's a Holmgren guy. I'd be a lot more excited about John Fox than I would be excited about Marty Mornhinweg, whose name has been bandied about. In fact, if the Mornhinweg rumors have legs, I'd advocate keeping Mangini (though I have a lot of faith in Holmgren). Fox, though, would be a strong hire, and word is that the Panthers would release Fox from his contract if he wanted out. Remember back in 2001, too, that there were two NFL assistant coaches the Browns were considering in addition to Butch Davis: Marvin Lewis and Fox. Both turned into pretty good head coaches. If he did come to Cleveland, Fox would bring eight years of experience and a 71-57 record, 5-3 in the playoffs.

9)      I quipped to Jerome Harrison (doesn't it always sound so much more important when you say "I said to … " or "I discussed with … " … what a joke) that 30 carries a game like he had the Browns final three games would put him close to 500 for a season. "That'd be all right," he said. "At least you know your math." No NFL back can withstand that many carries in a season, but in his final eight games at Washington State in 2005, he had 36, 28, 38, 21, 26, 34. 29 and 31 carries. Average: 30 per game. I recall Phil Savage holding a news conference once in the Browns draft room, and he pointed out the team's board. Some players' names had a star by them. Savage had asked each scout to choose one player who was so good that he, the scout, would stake his reputation on him. Harrison's name had a star. Wonder where that scout is now?

10)  Finally, Mangini deserves credit for the way he conducted himself this season. He never took criticism personally. He answered questions to the best of his ability. He might not have been as open as I might have liked, but he took some shots — locally and nationally — and never held it against anyone or let it affect how he answered a question. That's more than commendable. He's also been very professional about what might happen with Holmgren coming in. He's said over and over that he respects Holmgren has a decision to make, that he's been the one making similar decisions and he will understand if Holmgren decides a change is needed. He's done some lobbying for his job, but in general he's approached this situation about as well as it can be approached. I salute him for all of that.

And … because it's the Browns … a bonus 11 …

11)  One of the interesting things about the final month is that some of the guys who helped Mangini win games might look pretty interesting in a West Coast style offense — assuming Mike Holmgren implements it. Those guys would be Harrison and Evan Moore, both of whom can catch the ball and make yards after the catch. Moore ranks up there with Roth as a more-than-solid in-season addition.

Three and Out

Dear Pat,

According to at least half of the posters on your blog (that's at least 50,000 by my math), you know absolutely nothing about football.  If this is the case, how did you ever manage to become a lead sports columnist for a newspaper, let alone a football beat writer for two NFL teams?

Are you the same Patrick McManamon that wrote the book "University of Miami national championship, 1991"?  If so, is this a 146-page coloring book?

Is Brady Quinn your illegitimate son?  Were you in Columbus for a night or two in late January, 1984?  "Brady Quinn" sounds Irish to me.

Sorry for all of the questions, but I think we deserve to know exactly who we are dealing with here?.

Brian Dickey

Twinsburg

Dear Brian,

Quite personal, aren't you?

First of all, I'm not going to dignify the Quinn questions. It's not nice to his parents. Too, he once held the door for me at Panera, so I'm not jumping on these scurrilous questions, though the answer is "no" to both.

As for the blog haters, I don't always get it. But then again, when do I always get it?

I write an opinion. Folks can disagree, and I get that. In fact, I welcome open discussion and good-natured ribbing. But the personal rips are a little intriguing. Heck, I'm just a guy who's lucky enough to have a great job, which gets me more information and access than the average guy in the bar. I would hope that folks know when I present an opinion it is based on research and information more than observation.

In truth, the folks who comment on the newspaper stories online are worse than the bloggers. I sort of feel like a big family is discussing things on the frog; the newspaper commenters really hack and slash (a couple are below).

Guess that's why it's a great country.

As for the University of Miami book, yes, that was me. I covered that team and wrote that book. And no, it's not a coloring book. It's colorform. Big difference.

As for my qualifications to cover two teams and be a columnist … I'd guess there are perks to being able to type fast.

Dear Pat,

If you had to assign a letter grade to the job Eric Mangini has done with the Cleveland Browns this year, would you give him a B+ like President Obama gave himself; or would it be much lower, or possibly a bit higher?

Thank you, Bill Lucey

Dear Bill,

It would not be higher, but it would be lower.

The exact grade I shall not reveal because it would only provide more fuel to the fire of those who claim I am only negative regarding Mangini.

I will merely say he started poorly and finished well.

You are welcome.

Dear Pat,

How ya doin'? I didn't get to watch Sunday's game. My son had a wrestling match, but from what I could catch on the radio, they played pretty well. But … I would still fire Mangini.

I try to have a long memory, and I still can't get that crap out of my mind from earlier in the season. I could go on and on with some of his antics, but you know the story. Don't cut him any slack.

He just isn't a good man. Nor is he a winner.

Your faithful reader from Canal Fulton

Paul Milinkovich

Dear Paul,

I'm doin' good, but I'm probably not in the position to judge Mangini as a man.

I think, Paul, that my feelings are known about him and the Browns. That being said, there are many, many people who disagree.

I believe I've heard from a lot of them the past few days. Including these from online comments following my column in Tuesday's Beacon Journal:

"Pat … You degrade yourself every time you write about the Browns and Mangini. I'm ashamed for you."

And this:

"Pat … Why don't you go elsewhere and write about sports? Maybe Pittsburgh."

Time to start packing.

First, though, it's probably best to have a Guinness.

(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.)

The Browns proved that the final month in beating Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Oakland and Jacksonville.

In winning the final four games, the Browns outrushed their final four opponents 900-464.

That means the Browns averaged 225 yards rushing per game.

Which is pretty amazing, all things considered.

Much of the credit for this goes to the offensive line.

Much goes to Jerome Harrison.

Much goes to the incomparable Josh Cribbs.

Much goes to Eric Mangini and the coaching staff for recognizing what needed to be done and for changing the blocking scheme to a zone blocking approach.

But I also can't ignore the fact that the opponents and weather conditions dictated the approach to a certain degree. Running the ball in the miserable weather against Pittsburgh and Jacksonville made sense. Running against Kansas City's miserable defense made sense. Oakland was ranked 29th against the run going into Sunday.

So let's not ignore the reality that conditions and opponents contributed to the 900 yards.

That being said, the Browns did gain 900 yards in four games and they topped 160 yards rushing in a game in each of the last four wins, something that hasn't happened since 1968. Which is impressive if I were coaching (and thank goodness I'm not).

Any team that plays four of five home games in Cleveland in December needs to run the ball to win. The Browns won because they ran successfully.

It's probably the top highlight of the last month.

Random thoughts …

–I don't know what to make of Jerome Harrison, except that he looked awful good the final month. Where he was the previous 12 games and three years is up for debate.

–The Browns are only the second team since the league went to a 16-game schedule in 1978 to start 1-11 and finish with four wins in a row. New England did it in 1993 under Bill Parcells, in Drew Bledsoe's rookie season.

–Mangini said Parcells pointed that fact out to him in a phone conversation earlier this season.

–Please spare me the talk that all these wins mean so much. They mean something, yes, but I ache for the day when the Browns win games in September and October instead of in December when their fate is long decided.

–And for all those who say I won't point out Alex Mack's play, I will point out that Alex Mack has played well as the season has progressed. I invite anyone to go back and read what I wrote the day after the draft and around the draft. I always said the choice was not because Mack might not be a good player, he might be a great player. My criticism was that when you have the fifth pick you take a standout instead of trading down three times for a center.

–Mangini never sounded better this season than he did in his postgame news conference. He was compelling in stating his case to stay, classy about the fact he might not stay and proud of how his team finished. As he talked I kept thinking that was the Mangini who sat down for the Clark Judge interview in the bye week, and I wish that Mangini had appeared from the get-go this season.

–LeCharles Bentley — whose work on radio is better than almost anyone in the area — made a good point on WKNR before the game. He said that Mangini's approach had alienated the fans and media early this season to such a degree that owner Randy Lerner had to step out of the background and make a dramatic move, which he did by hiring Mike Holmgren. Now, as Bentley pointed out, Mangini's fate is in question. Bentley should be on the networks. He's that well-spoken and insightful.

–Asked Corey Williams if all the negative stories this season were blown out of proportion or if there was justification. He hesitated, said: "You're putting me in a tough spot." Then he said: "No comment."

–Josh Cribbs weighed in in favor of Mangini, saying: "The discipline and details he brought to this team showed in the four straight wins." Every time I quote Cribbs I flash back to him saying this after the Browns lost at home to Pittsburgh last season: "We're going to take this loss and run with it."

–Derek Anderson was asked if the four wins to end the season made a statement about the coach and Mangini's ability to get the team to play. "I think it says more about the guys in there (the locker room)," he said. "Not giving up and playing for each other the whole second half of the season."

–As for all these quotes … whatever. The only opinion that matters right now is Mike Holmgren's. And we'll see how he decides.

I like quarterbacks coach Carl Smith. A lot. He knows his stuff. Been in the NFL 20 years, and for 13 of those he was an offensive coordinator.

Smith knows the rules enacted by Eric Mangini, that he's only supposed to talk to the media when requested, and with permission. But he stood and waited for me after the game in a tunnel outside the locker room.

"You have a tape recorder," Smith asked, then stepped into a tunnel to talk.

And he wanted to talk about coach Eric Mangini.

"They missed it on Eric," he said. "They missed it."

The "they" he referred to were the folks who criticized Mangini throughout the early part of the season, folks like … me.

"I don't blame anybody," Smith said. "Because it's hard to know. It's not Entertainment Tonight.

"They missed it on (Bill) Belichick. They missed it."

In Cleveland?

Smith nodded.

"There's this whole big ball of football stuff that you have to know," he said. "And even for the people that know it it's hard to get it. They missed it.

"It's got to be people that know three techniques and hand placement and under and over and chapter 5 and spacing and slooping and all those things. You have to have lived and died it to have a chance to get it. They missed it.

"Because Eric can (win). He can (get it done). He knows.

"And while I'm sitting on my box here. They missed it on (offensive coordinator Brian) Daboll. Totally missed it on Daboll. He's terrific.

"Unless you're in there with him and know that big old ball of football stuff you're going to miss it. He's terrific.

"He's got an uncommon connection with his players. Linemen, receivers, running backs, all of them. That's rare to connect with the whole boat. He's had unbelieveable training — a decade –  with Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Pennington, Troy Brown.

"And he learned it. He knows it. He's got an unbelievable work ethic. Every game, every snap, the connection to the Xs and Os. They just missed it. He's terrific."

It was not the right time to argue with Smith, so I merely asked him a question: What happened at the beginning of the year then?

"That's all I got for you," Smith said with a smile as he walked away. He then said how great it was to win four in a row before turning a corner.

Does this make me pause?

Yes. Smith is knowledgeable and worked with Mangini all season long.

Does it change my opinion on the future of Mangini?

A little, but not enough to say I think he earned the right to stay. Not with the 1-11 start and the mess that was present early in the year. But at this point I have to say that what I think matters less than little, though, because it's all Mike Holmgren's call.

Was Smith saying this to save his own job?

I very much doubt it. He's been around long enough to understand things. Which includes part of his profession means constant hirings and firings.

I just found his words interesting, so I felt everyone should read them. All of them.

2)      Holmgren will hire a GM, and though he had a "never say never" attitude toward coaching, his focus clearly was on building a front office that can win."Randy Lerner is my boss and I answer to Randy," he said. "Then it’s my job to kind of direct traffic and put the organization together after that.  I have all the responsibility anyone could ask for and now I have to hire good people."

3)      If there are concerns about him hiring good people, consider who he hired in Seattle. Mike Reinfeldt was his salary cap guy, and Reinfeldt is now president of the Tennessee Titans. Ted Thompson was his vice president of football operations, and Thompson now is executive Vice President and GM of the Green Bay Packers. Scott McCloughan was his Director of College Scouting, and McCloughan now is the GM of the San Francisco 49ers. That's not too shabby a list of hires.

4)      One way to measure a guy is when he admits his mistakes. Holmgren did just that when discussing his first draft in Seattle. He said the draft — which resulted in the selection of immortals Lamar King, Brock Huard and Karsten Bailey — was "less than spectacular." And he blamed it on the fact he was listening to two groups of people, the holdovers from before he was hired and the people he had brought in. He said he will not repeat the mistake. Which means he will act quickly to bring in the people he wants. "We didn't do a good job with the draft, because I didn't," Holmgren said. "I learned from that. Those types of errors, I trust I won't do again, I won't make again."

5)      It was also nice to hear Holmgren's honesty when asked if the Browns could turn things around in one year. "I would love to tell you, 'Sure, absolutely,'" he said. "But you guys know as well as anybody that sometimes you can't get all the pieces together in the first year. … Now, can you improve and get better? Absolutely. And I would be very disappointed if we couldn't do that. Just how much a flip you can make in one year, a lot of it depends on some key positions on the football team and those are the things we're going to be evaluating." Check.

6)      Holmgren said the right things about listening to the coach when it comes to implementing a system, but if he doesn't implement the West Coast offense then there's a problem in Jamaica — though given this weather it's hard to see any problem in Jamaica. That approach will be the foundation of the offensive thinking, and it will be the philosophy behind the hiring of coaches, the acquisition of players and the entire thinking going forward. It will be the philosophy of the team, and given Holmgren's resume it will be the philosophy for the next few years. Which will enable the Browns to actually build using a philosophy.

7)      No, I'm not a big fan of a president or GM having a say in the hiring of assistant coaches. And perhaps Holmgren will step back on this one, because really at this point it's speculation. But there's a lot of chatter out there that he will want to hire a couple of his longtime guys, Jim Zorn and Gil Haskell. Zorn has not had a good run as a head coach in Washington, but he was a very good quarterbacks coach. Haskell is a quality guy.  I would think that once Holmgren gets his people in place, there will not be a lot of mandates from above. I also would think he will hire a coach, too, who will want to hire these coaches because the president and the coach will be linked in approach and philosophy and system. If that makes sense. Finally, it might make some sense to keep Rob Ryan. As bad as the defensive numbers are, that side of the ball has shown real improvement — and clearly they play for Ryan.

8)      I also realize there is a starting over element to this, and I've criticized the continual starts and re-starts by the Browns. As Holmgren said: "If you keep blowing up the team it takes longer to fix it." I just think with Holmgren the process will be more logical and sensible, and that this hiring finally signals the beginning of the end of the perpetual rebuilding. And I feel that way even if Holmgren decides to keep Mangini. Holmgren has earned that trust.

9)      His assessment of the team also made sense when he said he doesn't think the Browns need a complete re-build. Because he thinks Mangini and the present organization have put down some blocks on which to build. "I think the current staff has tried very, very hard to start that process," he said. "To re-start it all over again, I don't think we have to do that. I really don't I hope it doesn't appear that way when we roll up our sleeves and dive in there."

10)   If Mangini is not retained, I don't know the group of new coaches Holmgren is considering. I've heard names like Marty Mornhinweg bandied about, but I don't know where the talk is coming from. Mornhinweg has been a head coach and proven he's a great coordinator. I think Holmgren goes to an assistant coach in the league from a West Coast offense team. It might not be the most well-known guy in the NFL, but it'll be someone who's smart and knowledgeable. It will be a guy like Sean Payton was when he was hired in New Orleans, or Tony Sparano when he was hired in Miami. And the process in Miami is much like what will happen in Cleveland. Sparano was hired as head coach, but Dan Henning — a Parcells guy — was hired as offensive coordinator. The group has made it work. There's no reason Holmgren's group can't make it work.

And … because it's the Browns … a bonus 11 …

11)  The more I think the more I really wonder whether Mangini wants to stay. He has done a more than admirable job this past month. His team has played better recently. But staying would require him to accept so many changes — and the philosophies and culture seem so different between what he's used to and what will be implemented. It almost seems like he might propose the idea of a buyout, and walk away with at least three wins in his last four games (perhaps four in a row). This would enable him to say his work was starting to pay dividends — he can make a case — and that he and Holmgren just saw things differently. This would allow the Browns to start fresh and give Mangini the dignity and credibility he has earned from the good December. It might actually be the best solution for everyone.

And … because it's Holmgren … a bonus 12 … 

12)  It's been quite a while since there was reason for real excitement with the Browns, but there is now with Holmgren leading the operation. He's not a miracle worker, and there will be mistakes, and things might not go swimmingly in 2010 on the field. But the general direction and the way he approaches things give reason for optimism. Finally.

Three and Out

Dear Pat,

I'm a 57-year-old, lifelong Browns fan. Started the season already hating the Eric Mangini hire. So why am I having a hard time warning up to the Holmgren thing?

My feelings about Mangini started to change when I read his interview with Clark Judge. I was impressed with his commitment to what he wanted to do as coach. Because I also wanted a Browns team that was "smart" like the Pats. I wanted to watch a team that didn't cause me to expect a flag on every play. I wanted a team that played and won without a lot of hoopla. I feel like I'm starting to see all that happen, and without a lot of talent with which to do it. Call it a foundation.

But now Holmgren comes in late, like a housing inspector whose car broke down, and considers tearing down the foundation and building his own kind of house. I know you like the hire.

So what exactly is his job description? Can anyone other than a neophyte or figurehead coach truly feel comfortable with the Big Show looking over his shoulder? I'm guessing you don't get that nickname by hiding out in your office all day. What about the GM?

What's the difference between a George Kokinis getting pre-empted from below, or a Holmgren appointee getting pre-empted from above? Once Holmgren gets his coach and GM figured out, what does he do with his time? Are we supposed to believe a successful coach will not interfere with the coach and GM – and I can't think of a better word than interfere.

Basically, I like what I'm seeing from the Browns. I hope Holmgren does too. Let's see what happens when Mangini is able to build and not have to tear down first. Let's assume he has learned from past drafts and will have a better one. I am optimistic. It's a nice thing to be.

Sincerely,

Dick Close

Dear Dick,

I hear your points, but in this case I think you're making a jump of negativity that isn't warranted. Where is there evidence Holmgren would "interfere"? I don't see him having that kind of ego or personality, and that's based on his previous work and approach. He worked with Ron Wolf, not against him. He worked with Ted Thompson and others in Seattle, not against them. He's smart. I truly believe he will recognize the delicacy of his position, and act appropriately.

Too, Holmgren said he didn't think he needed to tear down and start over but to build on what's present.

Your points about Mangini are justified. I can't argue, because there have been good signs and Mangini can make a case that his approach works. I, too, read the Clark Judge interview and found it compelling. I wish he'd said those things in Cleveland months earlier.

But the results on the field — the Browns do rank 32nd in both offense and defense in a 32-team league — and the fiasco with the former GM led to the search for Mike Holmgren. The only quibble I have with the December games is that they came after horrific September, October and November games. If we forget how bad the Browns were in that time, we're not being fair to the team or the fans. Those games count too.

Holmgren is not coming in like a job inspector. He's coming in as the leader.

It was a move that was needed. Many of us cried for a similar move last January. That it happened in December should not be reason to be upset about it.

Dear Pat,

Losing games was not the only reason informed Browns followers are against Mangini. You are far too accomplished a sportswriter to get suckered into this, "gotta give him some credit" attitude because of these latest wins. Think of a Volkswagen the next time you feel the need to give someone some credit for something. Maybe something isn't always better than nothing?

Regards, Jim Schwartz

Dear Jim,

Why do I wonder if I'm hearing from the coach of the Lions? (I'm not … this Jim graduated from Garfield in '67.)

I can't win regarding Mangini. Since I weighed in with my feelings about him, anything I write is either ripped for being too negative or criticized for being too soft.

It's interesting. Eric Wedge wins late games for the Indians when the season is over and gets to .500 and folks rip him. Mangini wins late games for the Browns when the season is over and folks are ready to erect a statue in his honor. I'm getting e-mails calling me every name in the book.

Whatever.

My opinion is just that, my opinion. I stand by it, but I'm not guaranteed to be right because I have the ability to type fast. Time will reveal what happens to him.

But I promise again that if he stays I will start fresh with him — and we'll see what happens.

Dear Pat,

This is by no means an endorsement of all that has gone on this season. That being said, is it a coincidence that after Jamal Lewis and Shaun Rogers are out for the year the Browns play better?

Could it be these two "professionals" or "veterans" could have been huge cancers in the locker room?  Complaining about hitting too much, etc?

In all honesty I can't really say I was sad to see Jamal "Slow to the Hole" Lewis go.

Ed 

Dear Ed,

Lewis has looked slow to the hole now that Jerome Harrison has seized his opportunity. But I will never agree with the fact that he and Rogers were cancers or problems.

The Browns are taking advantage of two things: Improved play and an easier schedule.

Sometimes backups just need opportunities.

Dear Pat,

I thought I'd throw out a different way of thinking about the Browns. I've spent my entire professional career working with start-up companies. In the early days of a start-up, profits aren't the main motivator. There are other factors at work that define start-up success. I'd say, in the NFL, the equivalent of profits is wins. And I would also say that the Browns are a start-up and shouldn't be judged by wins just yet. (I say start-up because any team that has won 6 or fewer games in 6 of the last 7 seasons is definitely not an established winner.)

As an observer from afar, I've been paying close attention to other factors that I think are important for a winning organization: quality of players, professionalism, discipline.

1. Discipline: I believe very strongly that most teams beat themselves in the form of turnovers and penalties. The Browns are one of the least penalized teams in football. Given that, they have a lot of room to improve on the takeaway side, being -14 on the season. They were -10 in the first 8 weeks and -4 since then, so at least a little better as I'd expect second half improvement with a "start-up" team.

2. Professionalism: You'd know better than me as you are around the players and coaches all the time, but it seems to me that the head cases are gone. The fact that they are playing this hard at the end of a lost season where lousy play could easily get the coach canned is probably a pretty good sign regarding the player's professionalism.

3. Quality: This is the part I've been paying attention to. In thinking about the players on the roster at last season's end, there was only one stand-out area of the team (special teams) and only a handful of average to above average players (Rogers, Jackson, Vickers, Cribbs, Thomas, Steinbach, in my estimation). Let's face it: when there is this little above average NFL talent on a team, you can't expect too many wins. In retrospect, it's amazing that Mangini didn't come out at the beginning of the season and say we'll be lucky to win three or four games.

Given that, it seems like the talent level has increased. Vickers, Thomas and Steinbach have been solid again. Cribbs is beyond mention, easily the most exciting player on the team and maybe the best (Thomas and Vickers are pretty darn good also). On offense, I'd say we can add Alex Mack to that group, as he seems to be having a solid season. I'd also say we can put running back to bed for at least one year, with Harrison finally showing why he rushed for 2000 yards his senior season at Washington State. So now we have seven above average offensive players (I'm including Cribbs here).

On defense, we've also had some players step up this year. D'Qwell Jackson and Shaun Rogers seem to be solid, of course. I'm also hearing good things about David Bowens, Matt Roth and Ahtyba Rubin, names we can add to the average to above average list. This takes our defense from two above average to five. There's a few other players that might be borderline for this list — Kamerion Wimbley was having a good year before he got hurt, Corey Williams was better, Eric Wright seems to be mixed — but let's go with five for argument sake.

That means the Browns have added seven more average to above average NFL players to this roster this year, more than doubling that number in one year.

Are there plenty of holes? You don't lose as much as the Browns have over the past seven seasons without having a lot of holes. But what I want to see right now is improvement, the addition of solid ball players who can help this team over the long run, a disciplined and professional bunch of guys. It will take years to build the talent level to be a New England Patriots or Indianapolis Colts or Pittsburgh Steelers.

There are plenty of reasons to let Mangini go and I have no idea whether he should stay or not. Luckily, I don't have to make that decision. But I do see improvement and Mangini deserves credit for that, whether they win or lose in their final game.

Elia Freedman Portland, Ore.

Dear Elia,

So noted on the improvement, but I don't know if I'm all that thrilled with seven average to above average players. Eleven average players equals an average team.

I can make a case that Mangini did not do well. You can make a case that there are signs he is starting to do well.

Bottom line is the decision comes down to Holmgren and Mangini sitting down and discussing: Can you be the coach and work the way I want you to and adopt the overall philosophies that have taken me to Super Bowls?

If the answer is yes, Mangini can stay.

If Holmgren thinks the answer is no, he doesn't.

More important, if Mangini doesn't want to be part of that approach, it's best for him and the Browns to part ways.

No matter what happens, there will be things we all will thank Mangini for.

We just have to see what happens.

(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.)