Short post for me tonight, regrettably. But here is a link to a very good article, as usual, by Michael Lombardi that discusses the Packers and the Steelers most recent head coaching hires - more specifically, neither organization’s desire to “win the press conference.”
It seems to me that Mike Holmgren followed a lot of these same principles when hiring Pat Shurmur to be the Browns newest head coach.
Personally, I am always in favor of a decision that comes without a desire to win the press conference … but, in that case, I really wonder why Holmgren didn’t remove Mangini last season. Because if Holmgren believes in the principles Lombardi discusses in this article, then the notion of Mangini being the appropriate head coach for this organization seems deeply misguided.
In a tweet last week, LeCharles Bentley suggested that there were parallels between Mike Holmgren’s decision to hire Pat Shurmur as head coach of the Cleveland Browns and LeBron James’s decision to leave the Cavaliers for the Miami Heat.
The implication here, of course, is that Holmgren decided a long time ago that Eric Mangini would be fired and that Shurmur would replace him - just like LeBron almost certainly knew he would leave Cleveland for Miami far before July 1st, 2010.
Bentley’s argument then, if I’m interpreting the tweet correctly, is that if people are going to be angry about LeBron’s course of action, they should be equally angry with the path that Holmgren took.
I respect Bentley’s opinion more than any other talking head or radio personality in Cleveland. He offers specific insight about football that only an ex-player can give (as opposed to the gross, watered down generalizations a lot of former jocks toss out). He also has a true point of view. Almost nobody has that. I will choose to distill Bentley’s defining P.O.V. as pro-player / anti-ownership … or pro-worker / anti-management if you prefer to look at it as such.
It follows then that the overarching point Bentley is trying to make is fairly obvious: fans treat players one way and treat management another. When players exercise power they are derided for not being loyal. When ownership exercises power it is applauded for being firm. Fans want disciplinarians as coaches - but would never want their boss to be a disciplinarian.
Overall, I largely agree.
However, with all of that in mind, LeCharles is grabbing at straws by comparing Holmgren with James.
In the case of LeBron, fans of the Cavaliers were going to hate that he left no matter where he went or how he decided to do it. Watching the Cavs play this year, it’s easy to see why. By leaving Cleveland, LeBron very literally removed the joy that once came from watching the Cavaliers. Largely because of LeBron, one rather pleasurable extracurricular activity for Clevelanders … poof. Gone.
Not much fun.
But what angered people even more was their belief that LeBron let his decision to leave Cleveland show up in his performance on the court (read: the Eastern Conference Semifinals). The matter of LeBron having decided years ago that he, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh would team up in Miami was inconsequential - until it had an effect on how he conducted the one aspect of his business that could not be hidden from the fan base.
Anyone who has ever coasted during the last week of elementary school really shouldn’t complain about LeBron’s behavior. The same goes for anyone who didn’t try so hard in Algebra once they were admitted to college, or took the easy way out on difficult tasks during the last two weeks at a job. The only difference between you and LeBron is that millions of people care about his work. Maybe ten or fifteen people at most care about yours.
We could debate whether LeBron has a higher level of responsibility than me or you for a long ass period of time.
We won’t do that now.
Let’s look at Holmgren instead.
It’s hard to see the precise parallels between his situation and LeBron’s, even if we are to assume that Bentley is right and Holmgren decided … before the start of this season? … that Shurmur would be his head coach in 2011.
What impact did that decision have on the product the Browns put on the field in 2010?
Would the team really have won significantly more games with Shurmur than they did with Mangini?
Should fans be insulted that Holmgren “lied” to them, saying he wanted to give Mangini the best shot he could to make things work if he really did not?
If you’re truthfully surprised or actually upset that a pro sports executive, professional athlete, or hell, any person in the public eye lied to you at a press conference or in an interview, then you haven’t been paying attention for much of your adult life.
Ultimately, the notion that both Holmgren and LeBron “played us” may be true - but as far as Holmgren goes, we have to ask, “To what effect?” LeBron’s back room dealings impacted the playoffs and a real chance at a championship. What impact did Holmgren’s scheming have? Is the charge that he wasted this season by keeping Mangini around? Maybe … I’m just not sure the season would have been “found” if Shurmur or anyone else had been the coach instead of Mangini.
Therefore, I agree with Mike Holmgren’s decision to make a head coaching change.
When it comes to the process Holmgren and General Manager Tom Heckert have now begun - the search for a new head coaches - there is little of value that I can add.
On Twitter, Tim also linked to this piece on the apparent potential of Marty Mornhinweg.
I am personally wary of Jon Gruden because entertaining and high profile TV analysts make it easy for people to believe they are great coaches - when what they’re doing for ESPN et al has very little to do with actual coaching.
Because I want to avoid being overly repetitive, I’m not going to say much more about what happened today in Berea. What will happen from here on out won’t need my commentary or analysis. No one in the media knows much of anything about what goes on behind closed doors - and so much of what a coach does involves work that none of us ever see. There are better people than myself to analyze the merits of potential hires A, B, and C.
Ultimately, we all know that coaches get hired based on their track record and on their potential. We also know that they get fired because they don’t win enough games like Mangini. Or because they don’t win the right games, like Mike Brown.
To conclude, I want to offer some sympathetic words to Mangini. His philosophy, from my perspective, appeared to be flawed. But I know what working in a career filled with uncertainty is like. It is deeply challenging. I also know that failing at something you’ve strived for your entire adult life must be painful. And no longer being able to do a job you love has to be just as bad, if not worse. I am all but certain that Mangini worked as hard as he possibly could to turn the Browns into a winner and to keep his job as a head coach in the NFL.
But it didn’t happen.
And now life goes on.
Remember, coaches are real people, too. Even if they suck.
