Jump to content

John Dorsey named GM

hornbybrown

By hornbybrown
in Cleveland Browns

Recommended Posts

CBrownsman

CBrownsman

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Aztec Hammer said:

I think I understand what I've just read...

Am I right in saying Hue needs to be straightened out?

I mean Hue could be a really good coach if he improved in the following areas:

Playcalling

Challanging

Time Management

Ability to lead without bashing players

Interaction with the media

Ability to work well with a Front Office

General in game awareness

If he got significantly better in these areas I think he could be a great head coach.

SO yeah....straightened out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fatgerman

Fatgerman

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CBrownsman said:

I mean Hue could be a really good coach if he improved in the following areas:

Playcalling

Challanging

Time Management

Ability to lead without bashing players

Interaction with the media

Ability to work well with a Front Office

General in game awareness

If he got significantly better in these areas I think he could be a great head coach.

SO yeah....straightened out....

so close... should only take twenty or so years to learn. no biggie, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBrownsman

CBrownsman

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Fatgerman said:

so close... should only take twenty or so years to learn. no biggie, right?

Maybe Haslem wants to be like Mike Brown.

They have a coach for 15 years who has never won a playoff game...

could be a fun 20 years.  At least he's already won a game right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LETSGOBROWNIES

LETSGOBROWNIES

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, CBrownsman said:

Maybe Haslem wants to be like Mike Brown.

They have a coach for 15 years who has never won a playoff game...

could be a fun 20 years.  At least he's already won a game right?

At least the Bengals are relevant and get to the playoffs.

Haslam is modeling this franchise after the Washington Generals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bruceb

bruceb

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, CBrownsman said:

I mean Hue could be a really good coach if he improved in the following areas:

Playcalling

Challanging

Time Management

Ability to lead without bashing players

Interaction with the media

Ability to work well with a Front Office

General in game awareness

If he got significantly better in these areas I think he could be a great head coach.

SO yeah....straightened out....

Add game-planning to his team's/players' strengths and against his opponents' weaknesses, and making in-game adjustments to flaws in the game plan and I think it's covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kathouse Sticks

Kathouse Sticks

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, freakygeniuskid said:

We go through and show you, pick by pick, that this isn't true and you still trumpet it like it's a clear fact. I just don't get it. They didn't get a QB, for sure an issue and why they got fired, but the track record SO FAR (one/two years in for these guys, who knows what the future holds) is pretty impressive everywhere else in the draft.

And getting intentionally dumber is never a good idea. Only industries filled with "good old boys" clubs think it is. And those industries usually get taken over by smarter people eventually. 

I don't understand the assumption that Highsmith is good at his job or why it's not being questioned. Green Bay has had a top 5 QB OF ALL TIME for a decade and their haul is one superbowl appearance. Good organizations like PIT and NE have turned their franchise QBs into dynasties. Green Bay's drafting has been tuuuuuurrible outside of a couple positions (mainly OL) for the last ten years. I mean, he could be good, but I don't understand why the assumption seems to be that he will be automatically.

My point would be, as you say, the quarterback position, for sure. But have you looked at the receivers on this team?  You might say it’s only one position group, but they all count, and it’s a skill position. They should have looked at that group they put together and been ashamed. My other point would be that they didn’t maximize their picks (like taking Peppers). Perhaps not a bad pick, but not the best pick. Didn’t Sashi even say as much in his presser?  And you know what Dorsey said. They didn’t build a good enough roster, I think was the gist of it. I’ll try and look it up , precisely. That’s all I’m saying. It’s just a difference of opinion. It’s all good. 

As for Highsmith, I don’t know the man personally, but when people are saying what a great hire it is, I tend to believe credible reports. I like the hire. Let’s see what they can do. He wasn’t the GM making those tuuuuuurible picks. 

This tweet is from John McClain-a guy that’s covered the NFL for 38 years:

Getting Alonzo Highsmith to go with John Dorsey is the best thing for the Browns. Two terrific personnel men who were together with the Packers. I've known Highsmith since 1987, and he's an outstanding personnel man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FGK

FGK

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Kathouse Sticks said:

As for Highsmith, I don’t know the man personally, but when people are saying what a great hire it is, I tend to believe credible reports. I like the hire. Let’s see what they can do. He wasn’t the GM making those tuuuuuurible picks. 

This tweet is from John McClain-a guy that’s covered the NFL for 38 years:

Getting Alonzo Highsmith to go with John Dorsey is the best thing for the Browns. Two terrific personnel men who were together with the Packers. I've known Highsmith since 1987, and he's an outstanding personnel man.

My question is how the hell is this evaluated? I'm sorry, I'm not taking taking card carrying members of the old boys' club statements as God's own truth on this one. There is a disturbing trend in the NFL that the most important thing is how connected you are to the media/FO/coaching cadre, rather than how good you are at your job. It's how at least a few coaches/FO staff/etc. get hired every year and you look at it and say, "but they sucked at the same or lesser role elsewhere..."

It's possible that Highsmith is good, but I want to know what the evidence of that is. The Packers are good at drafting OL, but that has been known for a decade to be Thompson's specialty and at least in part is because he was the first to identify a set of testing criteria (short shuttle, 10 yard split, and broad jump I think) that are highly predictive of success (uh oh, analytics being useful for a good franchise, Kathouse just stopped reading). So, outside of being great at drafting OL, where is the evidence of Highsmith's accumen? 

Looking at GB's draft history, I'll ignore 2016/17 because those are way too early to judge. By my count, GB hit on 4/8 picks in 2015, 3/9 in 2014 (but with two guys who stuck on the bottom of their roster as well), 5/11 in 2013, and 4/8 in 2012. So that's a 40-50% success rate. That's solid, but nothing special. And we just have no clue what Highsmith's exact role was there.

My point isn't that this is a bad hiring. My point is that trumpeting it as a good hiring is strange when most of those who are excited for it just rode Sashi out of town on a rail despite the early returns on his draft picks looking like about 15/24 on being long term depth players at least, for a 62.5% success rate, which is waaaaay higher than normal for the NFL.

I guess I just don't look at an old boys' club member (Dorsey, gets a pass for bad drafting and cap mismanagement in KC because he's tight with a number of prominent media members and the FO fraternity) hiring an old buddy and say, "Yeah! This is clearly exactly what we needed and not cronyism/nepotism at all!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...