Browns hire Andrew Berry

[The Human Q-Tip]

I mean, the 49ers went 6-10, 2-14, 14-2.

So, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the first two years mean nothing. That being said, there were obvious extenuating circumstances and, further, the Browns shouldn't be anywhere near 4-12.

Also worth noting that prior to that, the 49er's had 3 coaches in 3 years, the third of whom was Chip Kelly. He had inherited a 5-11 team, and promptly went 2-14.
Now, some would say "You can't just fire him after one year! Four coaches in four years would be ridiculous, and we need stability!"

The Niners fired him anyway after one just season, throwing "stability" out the window, and hired Kyle Shanahan. That's worked out for them even though it meant they have their 4th head coach in 4 years. The inaptly-named Allbright saying that we should give a coach 4 years no matter what is just dumb.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

Serious question and I want you to answer honestly. What are the odds he is still GM in the year 2025?

They aren't good.

History shows that when things get rough, Haslam will bail no matter the commitment he has given to them. Here's to hoping he finally gets out of his own way...but...you know.

 

[Lee]

Do you think Andrew's favorite drink is black cherry kool-aid? Guy is young enough that he still probably drinks it.

I turned 48 yesterday and still fucking drink it, don't think that is a question, he most likely drinks kool-aide unles he is health concious.

 

[Chris]

There’s a difference between understanding objective reality and whether or not this regime will be able to thrive under the ownership.

What I or any of us think is irrelevant. People get psyched every regime change. Myself included.

Ownership is a huge problem but I refuse to believe they cant win with this owner. It can happen. Will it? The fuck knows.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

What I or any of us think is irrelevant. People get psyched every regime change. Myself included.

Ownership is a huge problem but I refuse to believe they cant win with this owner. It can happen. Will it? The fuck knows.

The Bengals have won under the Browns, the Cardinals under the Bidwells, the Chargers under the Spanos.

Although, I guess a point can be made that they did not win a Super Bowl. I could probably point to teams in other sports, though. (The Ricketts, for example)

 

[CBBI]

I mean, the 49ers went 6-10, 2-14, 14-2.

So, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the first two years mean nothing. That being said, there were obvious extenuating circumstances and, further, the Browns shouldn't be anywhere near 4-12.

The 49ers starting QB also blew his ACL at the beginning of Year 2 after they went 5-0 in the games he started in Year 1.

 

[Jordan]

Also worth noting that prior to that, the 49er's had 3 coaches in 3 years, the third of whom was Chip Kelly. He had inherited a 5-11 team, and promptly went 2-14.
Now, some would say "You can't just fire him after one year! Four coaches in four years would be ridiculous, and we need stability!"

The Niners fired him anyway after one just season, throwing "stability" out the window, and hired Kyle Shanahan. That's worked out for them even though it meant they have their 4th head coach in 4 years. The inaptly-named Allbright saying that we should give a coach 4 years no matter what is just dumb.

Shanahan was also phenomenal calling plays both years. They won out after getting Jimmy in the first year, were super injured last year, and killed it this year. They didn’t stick with Kyle just to stick with him.

 

[chrisrich91]

They aren't good.

History shows that when things get rough, Haslam will bail no matter the commitment he has given to them. Here's to hoping he finally gets out of his own way...but...you know.

Or here’s to hoping things don’t get so damn rough in the first place.

 

[6.19.2016]

Also worth noting that prior to that, the 49er's had 3 coaches in 3 years, the third of whom was Chip Kelly. He had inherited a 5-11 team, and promptly went 2-14.
Now, some would say "You can't just fire him after one year! Four coaches in four years would be ridiculous, and we need stability!"

The Niners fired him anyway after one just season, throwing "stability" out the window, and hired Kyle Shanahan. That's worked out for them even though it meant they have their 4th head coach in 4 years. The inaptly-named Allbright saying that we should give a coach 4 years no matter what is just dumb.

Well, the Pillsbury Oregon Boy's "innovative" methods were never going to last in the NFL long-term, anyway, so it was wise to cut bait on him early regardless of a "stability" desire.

 

[MoFlo]

Right...so if the Browns got 4-12 then 2-14, we should keep chugging until we hit 0-16...twice?

You keep people because they show promise, not simply for the sake of keeping them to prove a point.

I think we both know nobody was really suggesting that and that there are always exceptions in every scenario.

I can't speak for Allbright, but I can't imagine he meant that they should keep them four years no matter what. In fact, he says in his tweet "none of these year to year frustration changes".

 

[MoFlo]

Also worth noting that prior to that, the 49er's had 3 coaches in 3 years, the third of whom was Chip Kelly. He had inherited a 5-11 team, and promptly went 2-14.
Now, some would say "You can't just fire him after one year! Four coaches in four years would be ridiculous, and we need stability!"

On the flip side, I don't think there's any doubt that Haslam would've canned Shanahan after going 6-10 & 4-12.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think we both know nobody was really suggesting that and that there are always exceptions in every scenario.

I can't speak for Allbright, but I can't imagine he meant that they should keep them four years no matter what. In fact, he says in his tweet "none of these year to year frustration changes".

Well, he put "COMMIT" in all caps, followed by "4 Years." Not sure how else to take that.

But anyway....so Allbright is saying that we should have kept Freddie? Because otherwise, I think there's a really good case that Jimmy showed too much patience with the last HC he hired. And before that, we're talking 2015, so it would seem pretty lazy/out of date for AllBright to be tweeting in 2020 about decisions made in 2015.

I think the "Jimmy has no patience/meddles too much argument" is low hanging fruit for pundits that is really old news. He showed too much patience with Hue. He meddled too little when Dorsey wanted very inexperienced Freddie. I think he desperately wants stability -- as badly as do we. He's just trying to find the right guys who actually deserve to be kept in the job.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

On the flip side, I don't think there's any doubt that Haslam would've canned Shanahan after going 6-10 & 4-12.

Seriously?? I think there's plenty of doubt about that.

Hue took over a 3-11 team that he promptly took to 1-15, which at the time was the worst season in Cleveland Browns' history. Hue then followed up that season with an even worse 0-16 season, setting a record for the worst back to back seasons in NFL history. Jimmy still gave Hue 7 more games to prove he was the right guy before finally firing Hue and his 3-36 record. There's a good argument that Hue was the worst HC in NFL history.

Jimmy likely kept Hue because of the QB issue -- "I haven't had a good QB so why not see how I can do if you give me one". Hue asked Jimmy to take it purely on faith that he'd do better with a new QB, and Jimmy did so. Even though the decision to keep 1-31 Hue was widely panned.

Shanahan's argument for being retained was much stronger than Hues. He'd taken over a 2-14 team that he improved to 6-10, and ripped off 5 straight wins (@jking948 ) after acquiring Garappolo. So he wasn't asking the owner to take it just on faith he could win with a good QB, he actually proved it. That team had every reason to be wildly optimistic for 2018...then Garappolo got hurt and missed the season. But you're saying there's no doubt that Jimmy would have fired a 10-22 Shahanan, who had proven he could win with a good QB who was returning for the next season, even though he'd kept a 1-31 Hue who had never proven he could win with anyone?

Why is there not any doubt Jimmy would have canned Shanahan when he kept a guy in Hue who inarguably was worse?

 

[Huber.]

I think we both know nobody was really suggesting that and that there are always exceptions in every scenario.

I can't speak for Allbright, but I can't imagine he meant that they should keep them four years no matter what. In fact, he says in his tweet "none of these year to year frustration changes".

Why was it ok to get rid of Freddy this year but it won't be ok to get rid of Stefanski if he looks just as bad if not worse? If he sucks move on. None of these head coaches the new Browns hire end being successful head coaches elsewhere. Firing the guys they should have never hired is about the only thing they have going for them.

 

[The Oi]

If coaches lose locker rooms and look wholly incompetent with game day decision making (which are likely tied together), I think you have to fire them. Very difficult, if not impossible, to come back from that in any industry.

If that were to happen with Stefanski or any coach...they should see the door.

The Browns problem hasnt been firing coaches. It’s been hiring guys that didnt deserve the job or that they probably didnt want in the first place.

I believe Stefanski was probably 1b on Jimbo’s list and #1 on DePo’s list. I’m behind DePo here if that’s correct. That said, if the guy can’t delegate properly as he claims he will, gets overwhelmed and makes bad decisions during games, ends up with in-fighting like previous coaches did, can’t keep his team disciplined, etc...he’s gonna see the door and should.