On Monday, National Football Post’s Michael Lombardi dedicated part of his column to Mike Holmgren’s open statement that the Browns would not be picking Jimmy Clausen with the #7 overall draft choice. In case you missed it, here’s the quote:
“I wish I liked him more. You know how you have a type of player that you like? It’s not scientific. People like him a lot. He’ll go high. But it would be hard for me (to take him).”
As Lombardi points out, this is not a savvy move by a team’s top executive. Information, as we all know, is power. This is especially true when it comes to the draft. Buffalo is the only other team picking after the Browns in the top 10 that is also desperately in need of a franchise quarterback. (The Rams and Redskins have both been pegged as teams potentially looking to upgrade the position, but both choose ahead of the Browns at #1 and #4 overall, respectively.) Sam Bradford and Clausen are the only two quarterbacks that any draft expert I’ve seen has placed anywhere in the first round.
It’s entirely possible that the Rams pick Bradford, the Redskins pick Clausen, and the entire point is moot. But if the Redskins use their pick on a more workman-like position (say, OT, where they’re also deficient) the Browns have already blown any chance to pressure the Bills into trading up for the opportunity to pick Clausen. Holmgren has also potentially pissed off the front offices of both Kansas City (#5 pick) and Seattle (#6), both of which stood to gain from the same scenario. Don’t expect any deals with either of them any time soon.
This Clausen incident is just the latest in an established pattern. Holmgren has already made it clear by this point in his regime that truth-telling is going to be his default position. More than his spotty history in choosing personnel, this commitment to honesty is what concerns me most about the future of the Browns.
Think back to last year’s draft. The Browns had the fifth overall pick. They had so many gaping holes on both sides of the ball that they could have taken any number of impact players. But beyond their needs, the factor that made them the biggest wild card in the draft was Alpha Dog, whose defining characteristic as a coach and executive was the pathological commitment to hiding information from practically everyone. When the moment of truth came, the Browns traded down three times in the first round before tapping Alex Mack at #21 overall.
Now, we can debate all day whether trading down was the right move, either in general or for the specific compensation that Alpha received. But it’s indisputable that his unwillingness to show his hand gave him options—options that Holmie the Clown has already bungled away by giving an honest assessment of Clausen.
There’s a huge irony here that no one is talking about yet. That irony is the reaction of “the fans.” (Note: I’m putting this term in quotes to denote the same faceless, unified-in-basic-thought mob that writers like Terry Pluto cater to constantly…also known as ‘people who don’t read this blog’).
From everything I’ve read so far, “the fans” L-O-V-E Holmgren. They love him despite the fact that they don’t necessarily agree with some of the moves his regime has made, such as trading Kam Wimbley or signing Jake Delhomme to starter-level money. They love him enough to admit that they might be wrong about their personal feelings on these moves. In short, they love him enough to give him a chance.
Why do they love him like this? In the case of the quarterbacks, Lombardi suggests that it’s because of Holmgren’s reputation for developing quarterbacks as a coach. I agree with the analysis to some degree, but I also think that it’s only part of the equation. I would argue that the bigger component—bigger because it explains the pass he’s being given for every decision, not just the QBs—is that he’s made a commitment to being up front about his thoughts. To answer questions directly. To say what he means and mean what he says. In other words, a commitment to making “the fans” feel as though they have a window into the process.
Despite the love it’s gotten him from “the fans,” I could not disagree with this policy more strongly.
As we’ve stated over and over again since starting this blog, “the fans” should never be a factor in the front office’s decision-making, regardless of which sport it is we’re talking about. The reason is precisely because they are “the fans,” whereas the people making the decision are professionals whose jobs depend on seeing things that “the fans” don’t—and in many cases, shouldn’t—have access to. Pro sports executive is not a popularly-elected position, after all.
I’m sure there are people out there who would disagree with me on all these points. I know there are elements of “the fans” who would say that I’m not reading the reaction accurately, that they’re really just holding the jury out on Holmgren until they see whether or not this team will show marked improvement.
To me, though, this argument is garbage. Why? Because by the start of training camp last season, “the fans” (and some of the writers) were already calling for Mangini to be burned at the stake. From an executive standpoint, there is very little difference between Holmgren’s circumstance right now and Mangini’s at this time last year. Both replaced prior regimes that were extremely unpopular. Both immediately made some trades of skill players to accumulate draft picks (Kellen Winslow Jr vs. Kam Wimbley—and yes, I intentionally left Body By Quinn out of that comparison). Both made moves to bring in players who were not particularly highly regarded around the league as difference-makers (Abe Elam vs Seneca Wallace).
Yes, Holmgren is given credit for his successes as a head coach. But that’s not the role he’s fulfilling here. And yes, GM Tom Heckert is given credit for loading Philadelphia with talent. But he didn’t have total control there under Andy Reid. So in both cases, these men are occupying positions that are new to them.
I agree that both should be given the benefit of the doubt until the results can be judged in some tangible way. That said, it’s clear to me that the only reason Holmgren is being given this opportunity in the court of public opinion is because he’s ingratiated himself to “the fans” through his truth-serum campaign. I also strongly believe that the very strategy that’s buying him this time is ultimately one that puts the franchise in the worst possible bargaining position when it comes to the draft—a draft which, by all accounts, could be make or break for the Browns’ attempts to claw themselves out of the grave they’ve dug. Though I know he’s not consciously calculating it this way, it’s a flawed game plan: buy “the fans” off now while increasing the likelihood that you piss them off later by fielding a weaker team.
I have no idea how it’s all going to turn out. But if you’re looking to inspire confidence in this writer, Holmie, honesty is most definitely not the best policy.
-T
(view comments)
