Pluto: Childress, WCO, and the draft

[Triplethreat]

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Sure, you might be thinking a little about football today. But we never ignore the entire NE Ohio sports scene.

About Brad Childress...

1. The Browns believe in the West Coast Offense (WCO) and in continuity. They believe it works and it wins. We can debate it, but this is their gospel and they believe the best way to prove it is to have an offensive coaching staff coming out of the same book, same page and same paragraph. Yes, there will be room to disagree, but it will be about how best to make the WCO work.

2. Which brings us to why the Browns hired Childress as the offensive coordinator. They interviewed far more than the two known candidates -- Mike Sherman and Childress. But those two were the finalists, because they both have head coaching and WCO experience. Head coach Pat Shurmur felt a very strong comfort level with Childress, as they both worked together in Philadelphia for seven years.

3. Here's a quick history of the Browns' branch of the WCO. Team president Mike Holmgren trained Andy Reid, who was a quarterback coach at Green Bay. When Reid became the head coach at Philadelphia, two assistants that he hired were Childress and Shurmur. For three years, Childress was the offensive coordinator (2002-05) with Shurmur as the quarterback coach. They were on the staff for seven years together.

4. Yes, you can keep tracing the WCO partly back to Paul Brown, and certainly to Bill Walsh. It was Walsh who begot Holmgren, who begot Reid, who begot Shurmur and Childress.

5. While Reid called the plays on the field, he was on the headset with Childress. Shurmur sat next to Childress in the press box during the games. Childress and Shurmur had the offensive game plan in front of them, with Childress offering input to Reid before plays were called.

6. These WCO coaches don't believe the actual play-caller is that big of a deal. They talk about "collaboration," and how they already know come game day which plays they will use in almost every situation. It's a matter of picking from a short list.

7. Childress was the play-caller his first year (2006) as Minnesota's head coach. He then turned it over to his offensive coordinator. But those close to the Vikings said Childress still had a major say in the game plan and actual play-calling.

8. As of now, it appears Shurmur will work in a Reid-type system. He will make the play calls from the field. It hasn't been established if Childress will be on the field or in the press box. No matter where Childress is situated, he will confer with Shurmur.

9. Childress/Shurmur sat next to each other as OC/QB coach for about 60 games over the years with the Eagles, helping Reid with the play calling. Yes, the Browns had Mark Whipple as quarterback coach, but he spent only 2008 with the Eagles as "offensive assistant." That was Shurmur's last year with the Eagles. Whipple remains as quarterback coach, but Childress becomes the main guy when it comes to offense.

10. The real work for Childress will be during the week, planning and running the practices. The Browns were surprised at some of the criticism over the hiring. They see him as a head coach who took the Vikings from six wins to 12 wins before it fell apart in his fifth season -- when he was fired after a 3-7 start. He didn't have Brett Favre until the 12-4 season. In his first three seasons, the quarterbacks for Childress were Brad Johnson, Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte.

About the Browns and the draft ...


1. For the last few weeks, I'd been hearing about the Browns going defense with the No. 4 pick, focusing on LSU cornerback Morris Clairborne. It's no secret Holmgren/Tom Heckert like lots of good cornerbacks, and Claiborne is the best. The Browns have Joe Haden at one spot, and Sheldon Brown at the other. But Brown could be moving to safety, especially if Mike Adams leaves via free agency. The Browns may be intrigued by the idea of a Haden/Claiborne combination at the corner for several years. That is one of the theories of Dan Shonka from Ourlads.

2. But this week, I keep hearing defensive end -- namely Quinton Coples. I wonder how much of this has to do with Couples having a monster week at the Senior Bowl and the fact that Jayme Mitchell proved that he was not a starter last season. They have no one else at the opposite end from Jabaal Sheard. ESPN's Mel Kiper on the North Carolina product: "Bouncing back from a so-so season, he is dominating Senior Bowl practices. The skill set is hard to look past. The physical traits and talent are there; it's more a matter of consistency. Great size and length to hold the edge as a 4-3 defensive end."

3. Mitchell played 14 games (13 starts) and had only 1.5 sacks. In his first five games, he had 19 tackles. In the last nine games, 13 tackles. He was just out there much of the time.

4. I'm concerned about linebackers, where the Browns have D'Qwell Jackson in the middle. A free agent, he is expected to be back. They like Chris Gocong on one side. Scott Fujita returns on the other side, but he will be 33 in April and has been hurt in the last three seasons. Since coming to the Browns, Fujita has played 30 games and missed 18. They do believe Kaluka Maiava is a capable starter, but I'd love to see a playmaker at one of the outside linebacker spots.

5. Some fans may be screaming, "What about the offense?" My guess is they will go offense with the 22nd pick, where they may find a receiver. Of course, it's early February, and a lot can change. But I hear many teams believe a good receiver will be available when the Browns use their No. 22 pick.

Wouldn't complain if we went defense with the 4 pick. Ore decided to move down and get more picks, then took Coples to go opposite of Sheard. Because AFC North teams are built on the premise that defense wins titles.

Thoughts?

[bigjmac0815]

wouldn't mind solidifying our defense at #4 if RGIII isn't there....he'd be too hard to pass up after what Cam Newton did this past season

[RappSoda]

Wouldn't complain if we went defense with the 4 pick. Because AFC North teams are built on the premise that defense wins titles.

Thoughts?

I agree with you. I don't want to give up picks to move around the top of the draft. If RG3 falls to 4, I'm taking him or selling to the highest bidder. If he isn't there, I'm either trading down slightly or grabbing the top player on the Browns board. If he is defense, fine. It isn't like the Browns are set on defense and they could use a great CB/DE for certain.

[Randolphkeys]

Hey, defense and a slightly above average offense just won the Super Bowl.

While drafting Claiborne wouldn't surprise me, my biggest surprise would be ANYONE knowing exactly what the Browns plan to do. Their first round plan in the last two drafts have been completely impossible to predict.

[Triplethreat]

I'm one that thinks the Browns are pretty committed to solidifying the defense first.

I for one would love Coples in the 8-10 range if it means we grab another first next year.

Our D-Line would be set for the next 10 years with Coples, and it would be looking like an ELITE D-Line, sort of the route the Giants went. Also, we need good pass rush from our front four because of our defense under Jauron, is more base and doesn't mix in too many blitzes.

[Chris]

I feel like the defense is already solidified in that it is above average....do we really need the 4th pick in the draft to go defense now, too?

If we do, it better be a legitimate game changing defensive player.

[bigjmac0815]

I would rather take Claiborne over Coples at #4 if we go defense

[Rookie]

We have a top 7 defense, I really think it's time we work on our offense.

[cdt]

I don't want Couples I've heard his attitude sucks, I'll go with Claiborne.

This defense better do some sadistic fucking training in Arizona or Denver because they're going to be on the field about 50 minutes a game.

[speedyd718]

Hey, defense and a slightly above average offense just won the Super Bowl.

While drafting Claiborne wouldn't surprise me, my biggest surprise would be ANYONE knowing exactly what the Browns plan to do. Their first round plan in the last two drafts have been completely impossible to predict.

This is a joke right, because Eli isn't slightly above average in the least bit. Let's get real here. We need a QB and going defense isn't an option, on my board anyway.
/rant

[RappSoda]

I feel like the defense is already solidified in that it is above average....do we really need the 4th pick in the draft to go defense now, too?

Not necessarily. I, for one, am not in favor of trading up and losing picks just because we have needs on offense. If the best player on the board is a defensive guy, I'm in favor of taking it unless we're able to get a good deal in a trade.

If we do, it better be a legitimate game changing defensive player.

Agreed. The player should be a slam-dunk stud.

[DaNewCavs]

This is a joke right, because Eli isn't slightly above average in the least bit. Let's get real here. We need a QB and going defense isn't an option, on my board anyway.
/rant

Eli is better than slightly above average, but their running game was worst in the league this year. They were also middle of the league in giveaways. The Giants offense only appears much better because we have gotten used to watching the Browns putrid offense for the past 3 years.

[Chris]

Not necessarily. I, for one, am not in favor of trading up and losing picks just because we have needs on offense. If the best player on the board is a defensive guy, I'm in favor of taking it unless we're able to get a good deal in a trade.



Agreed. The player should be a slam-dunk stud.

I do agree with you in that I am absolutely against trading ANY picks, whatsoever, unless it involves getting Luck. I just find it hard to believe RG3 won't be there at #4 and I have trouble passing him up for more defense. I mean, the season has only been over for a couple months. Have we already forgotten the nightmares induced by watching this offense?

[RappSoda]

I do agree with you in that I am absolutely against trading ANY picks, whatsoever, unless it involves getting Luck. I just find it hard to believe RG3 won't be there at #4 and I have trouble passing him up for more defense. I mean, the season has only been over for a couple months. Have we already forgotten the nightmares induced by watching this offense?

We're on the same page. I want RG3 at #4. If he's not there and the next best guy is on defense. Defense it is. I'd also trade up for Luck.

[speedyd718]

Not necessarily. I, for one, am not in favor of trading up and losing picks just because we have needs on offense. If the best player on the board is a defensive guy, I'm in favor of taking it unless we're able to get a good deal in a trade.

I felt like this until last night. The throw that Eli makes on the sideline to Manningham did it for me. We need a QB that can make that throw, at all costs. Those throws win games.