Coach Chud Fired

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Then Chudzinski flat out lied about it. I heard him say out of his own mouth that Richardson was traded because he didn't fit his (CHUDZINSKI'S [he said "my"]) system.

I can't recall Chud ever saying that. Nor can I find any textual evidence of it either. As a matter of fact, the only evidence I can find seems to point in the direct opposite of what you claim.

 

From the press conference following Richardson's trade:

 

On whether Trent Richardson fit into the Rob Chudzinski/Norv Turner offense, and whether the trade reflected that notion: (Rob Chudzinski) No, not at all. It really had nothing to do with Trent from that standpoint.

 

On clarifying the earlier question about whether the trade means that Richardson doesnt fit the offense: (Rob Chudzinski) Well, the question was whether he fit the offense. It really has nothing to do with Trent from that standpoint. The opportunity as an organization was there for us to have a chance to get better, ultimately, and I felt like it was the right decision overall.

 

 

 

 

On whether the trade potentially comes too early in the season: (Joe Banner)As Coach just said, this was more about the moment that presented itself based on the situation the Colts found themselves in. It wasnt something where we could say, Can you wait three weeks and let us think about this or learn more? We had to decide whether we thought it was a move that would make us better, and we had to make that decision now. We decided to move forward.

 

 

 

On whether the Browns expect Richardson to play better with the Colts given the quality of players around him: (Joe Banner) I just think Trents a really good player, so I think he would have done really well here, and I think hes going to do really well there. Thats at least my opinion.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

The reasons for Chud's termination can be found here, as can a couple of historical facts that should give us some hope for Cleveland's future.

 

 

 

http://factoryofsadness.sportsblog.com/posts/239409/chudzinski_fired_a_closer_look.html

[Tour2ma]

It's like a divorce, while it's horribly tough, it's better for everyone to do it quickly so everyone can move on and improve their lives. Yes the FO hired him and fired him quickly, but at least they didn't drag out their mistake for several seasons.

 

I've been divorced... this is worse...

 

I would take 3 Steelers fans to take your place on this board than have to read the dumb shit you make us read.

 

Thank you, ED...

 

Im sorry I think a lot of you who are happy about this firing really dont know what your talking about. I pray the Redskins hire Chud as the head coach of the Skins immediately. I think hes the next great coach out there. If Brian Hoyer doesnt get injured the Browns would have won the division. I cant believe they only gave Chud 1 year. Its just a shame.

For goodness sake he made Jason Campbell look good at times.

 

Good to see you again... Thanks for the objective view, just please do not send Shanahan our way.

 

I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer.

 

Based on practice and pre-season, it was a more than understandable decision.

 

How about a little credit for leap-frogging Hoyer over Campbell when Wheezy went down? Or was that a bad decision as well?

[Spectralcow]

TCPO,

 

You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.

 

What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?

 

When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.

 

Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

TCPO,

 

You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.

 

What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?

 

When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.

 

Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.

 

Richardson was traded because the deal was too good to pass up. Richardson is what he is, a shot yardage back that lacks any breakaway skills. As one Browns source put it, "We were getting killed when we made that deal, but now people are seeing the same things we saw in him. There is a lot to like about Trent. He's solid, dependable, hard-working. The problem is that he's not explosive."

 

 

This statement really sums up how Richardson was viewed by the Browns brass:

 

"I saw him score on a 1-yard touchdown in his first game there (a 27-7 win over San Francisco) and the announcer said that was why the Colts traded for him. And all I could think was that play was right in Trent's wheelhouse. He'll make those plays for you all day. But when you need seven yards, he'll still get you three."

 

Richardson is a nice guy, a hard nosed player and a good player to have on your team when you need three yards. But he's not first-round material and the fact that this FO was able to get a first rounder for a guy averaging less than 3 YPC is a miracle. It is literally the only redeeming quality of this FO at the current moment.

 

We were able to lose 10+ games with Richardson last season. He wasn't needed here.

 

It had nothing to do with the scheme. It had everything to do with the fact that he's not really a superstar player.

[Spectralcow]

That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.

Which is a completely fair and reasonable assumption.

 

We don't know yet what Richardson has yielded. If we turn that pick into a franchise QB then it will be worth it. Anything less, fans may be upset.

 

I wouldn't say we've gotten worse at running the ball, because our backs have nearly the same YPC as TR does on the season. We've certainly run the ball a lot less, but the effectiveness for the most part is still there.

 

I think the plan all along was to throw the ball 40 times per game to fully see what our passing game had. Those were the directives.

[Spectralcow]

Agreed. And that's the part I don't really understand. How do you insist on throwing the ball so much and then blame your lack of success on the fact that you didn't yet have a QB? To me, that seems contradictory. If you don't have a QB, maybe don't throw the ball so much.

 

A few years ago, the Broncos put Tebow in at QB. They knew then what everyone else has since SLOWLY accepted: the guy can't pass very well. So you know what they did? They passed less. Now obviously Tebow was an athletic guy who was good at running the ball, and the Browns obviously weren't in that same situation, but there's a useful idea there. Recognize your team's limitations and adjust accordingly. Don't ignore those limitations during the games and then blame your lack of success on them afterward. If you know you don't have a QB, then don't center your offense around passing a lot.

[Erie Dawg]

Agreed. And that's the part I don't really understand. How do you insist on throwing the ball so much and then blame your lack of success on the fact that you didn't yet have a QB? To me, that seems contradictory. If you don't have a QB, maybe don't throw the ball so much.

I'm starting to think your just fucking around.

They could 'not' run the ball at a consistent level so you have to _______?

hint: the answer isnt punt or kick field goals.

Did you not see the shit JMJ called RB's this year. we had grandpa, thumbs and a muppet

[Spectralcow]

I was basing my response on TCPO's premise that the Browns were not less effective at running this year than in 2012, they just didn't do it as much. Either they were ineffective at running in 2013 or they weren't. If they were, it made little sense to trade Richardson away (regardless of whether or not you think he's good; the rushing was better when he was there in 2012). If they weren't less effective at running in 2013, then they should have run more. It can't be both ways.

[Erie Dawg]

Richardson was shit we traded the turd and got a new fresh steamy pile of old shit through FA.

What's to discuss our rb's suck(ed) both year's?

TCPO is right in saying if you need a yd trents your man but he won't pick up chunks.

[Spectralcow]

And you don't think there were times this year when the Browns could have used a yard... or a rushing TD?

[Mark O]

And you don't think there were times this year when the Browns could have used a yard... or a rushing TD?

I'm sure there were but we still lost 10 games with him and we swapped a 1st round pick for a guy averaging 3 yards per carry for his career.

 

Great short yardage back but not worth the first round pick Indy gave us for him even if they win the super bowl.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I was basing my response on TCPO's premise that the Browns were not less effective at running this year than in 2012, they just didn't do it as much. Either they were ineffective at running in 2013 or they weren't. If they were, it made little sense to trade Richardson away (regardless of whether or not you think he's good; the rushing was better when he was there in 2012). If they weren't less effective at running in 2013, then they should have run more. It can't be both ways.

It can be both ways. It's not black and white. They were equally as effective in 2013 as they were in 2012 which, is to say, not very. I would say a YPC around 4-4.3 for the season would be considered effective.

 

Richardson wasn't extremely effective in 2012, therefore he was available to trade. The Colts offered a first round pick, and he was gone.

 

Trent was traded, then Hoyer was put in the following week. Hardly a coincidence. I don't believe they expected Hoyer to get hurt Week 5. What they did expect was to have Hoyer throw the ball 40 times per game to see which receivers and TE's would stay and which wouldn't.

 

However, Hoyer went down and we got stuck with two less than stellar QB's, and so we stuck to the plan.

[Spectralcow]

Again, I don't know that we can say definitively that Hoyer was put in Week 3 as part of some unfolding plan. Chud (or someone) made the decision to start Weeden entering the regular season. Weeden got hurt in Week 2 and some arrangement had to be made for a Week 3 QB. Everyone keeps acting like Hoyer was the plan all along. Hoyer played in preseason and Chud (or whoever) didn't make the call to start him in Week 1.

[miktoxic]

i'm sorry, but i like haslam. he is a no Fing around guy. you got hired to do this and you didn't so bye bye.

 

also i really doubt chud had anything to do with the roster moves. he could have given the FO guys his input but he called out weeden as the starter. and where is turner in all of this or horton as well?

 

QB genious with aikman under his wing? name me another QB he has groomed to be a pro-bowler besides rivers, and he is playing above his head w/o turner being there. horton hears who? dude was a big disappointment and was hoping for the days of ryan again.

 

haslam is bottom line biz man and this is what i've dreamed of all along for 2 decades now. you got a foundation, you got talent but you can't coach for shit letting 50% of our games to be lost in the 2nd half when we led at the half?

 

see ya GOOBER!!

[bbedward]

i'm sorry, but i like haslam. he is a no Fing around guy. you got hired to do this and you didn't so bye bye.

 

also i really doubt chud had anything to do with the roster moves. he could have given the FO guys his input but he called out weeden as the starter. and where is turner in all of this or horton as well?

 

QB genious with aikman under his wing? name me another QB he has groomed to be a pro-bowler besides rivers, and he is playing above his head w/o turner being there. horton hears who? dude was a big disappointment and was hoping for the days of ryan again.

 

haslam is bottom line biz man and this is what i've dreamed of all along for 2 decades now. you got a foundation, you got talent but you can't coach for shit letting 50% of our games to be lost in the 2nd half when we led at the half?

 

see ya GOOBER!!

I like Rob Ryan just because I like watching him on the sidelines. And he also buys the fans beer after wins.

 

Besides that, I'd be fairly confident in saying he's a better coach than his brother, but he hasn't had the HC opp yet.

 

Top bad he isn't friends with Lombardi (or associated with Bill , he's a DC I'd like to see as HC.

[jrb12711]

Ya know, I was really pissed about the trade yesterday. But hell maybe this is the shit the browns need to turn it around. I mean good grief we've tried everything else so why not fire a coach after one season? The Richardson trade seemed Retarded too but it turned out to be a steal. Maybe this rash decision will work too.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Again, I don't know that we can say definitively that Hoyer was put in Week 3 as part of some unfolding plan. Chud (or someone) made the decision to start Weeden entering the regular season. Weeden got hurt in Week 2 and some arrangement had to be made for a Week 3 QB. Everyone keeps acting like Hoyer was the plan all along. Hoyer played in preseason and Chud (or whoever) didn't make the call to start him in Week 1.

I sincerely doubt Brian Hoyer was brought in to be the backup QB. After everything Lombardi said about him being a starting caliber QB, it doesn't add up.

 

Weeden was endorsed by Chud, and it cost him his job.

[Spectralcow]

TCPO, I'm with you on that. There are people on these boards that try to act like Chud lost his job because Hoyer got hurt. Maybe it worked out that way, but Chud didn't have some preseason plan to use Hoyer to win games.

[Mark O]

Another view of the situation from Bill Barnwell and grantland.com

 

 

The Browns fired head coach Rob Chudzinski on Sunday night after just one year at the helm. It was one of the more surprising NFL terminations in recent memory. While rumors naturally circle around bad teams and their coaches during the second half of the season, there hadn't been as much as a peep about Chudzinski's status until Sunday morning, when beat reporter Tony Grossi tweeted that there were bad vibes surrounding Chudzinski's future. Grossi later noted that embattled Browns owner Jimmy Haslam left the stadium during Sunday's loss to Pittsburgh with six minutes to go in the game.

 

In a short statement, the Browns attributed the firing to the team's "concerning step backward in the second half of the year." It's hard to argue with that statement, given that the Browns lost 10 of their last 11 games and went 0-7 after their bye.

 

That being said, it's also difficult to imagine that the vast majority of coaches would have been able to do much more. The Browns were starting a combination of Jason Campbell and Brandon Weeden at quarterback during that stretch, neither of whom is particularly good at football. Last year's first-round pick, Trent Richardson, was traded away early in the season for a future first-rounder. The team was starting 2012 seventh-rounder Edwin Baker — playing for his third team this season alone — at halfback by the end of the year. Wide receiver Josh Gordon had taken a huge leap forward and become arguably the league's top receiver. Would the team have fired Chudzinski if the Browns had held on late against the Patriots, who needed an onside kick to beat Cleveland in Foxborough? If they had cobbled together a win against the Jaguars or Jets late in the campaign? This wasn't really a team built to win this year, and it didn't. If Chudzinski failed to live up to the team's expectations to such an extent that it felt it necessary to fire him, it seems more likely that the organization's expectations were too high.

 

It's also revealing that the Browns were so aggressive as to fire Chudzinski on Sunday night, before the traditional "Black Monday" firing spree that comes after Week 17. It seems to suggest one of two things. Given that there had been no chatter regarding the firing before yesterday, it's possible that the Browns were only going to fire Chudzinski if they were able to hire a specific replacement. Cleveland could have surreptitiously reached out to its candidate, agreed to an outline of terms, and then felt confident enough about the pending hire to sack Chudzinski.7

 

Alternately, the Browns could have laid the hammer down this early to ensure they get to interview candidates before anybody else gets hired. The Texans have already been linked to Penn State head coach Bill O'Brien, but CBS's Jason La Canfora reports that O'Brien did not interview well when he met the Browns about the job a year ago. A more likely candidate is Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels, whom Browns general manager Mike Lombardi identified as his first choice for a would-be head coaching vacancy in 2011, while Lombardi was working for NFL Network. Because the Patriots have a first-round bye, league rules allow the Browns to interview McDaniels for their head coaching vacancy during the postseason bye week. Had the Patriots failed to claim one of the top two seeds in the AFC, the Browns would not have been able to interview McDaniels for another week. The Browns would have to travel to the East Coast to interview McDaniels, so now is about the time when Browns fans will start loading up flight tracking websites to find a private jet traveling from Cleveland to Providence.

 

Cleveland's current coaches are left in a weird position. Ian Rapoport of NFL Network reported on Sunday night that the Browns intend to keep their assistants on staff and hire a head coach who would inherit said staff, which is a move that doesn't benefit either party. Head coaches want to hire their own staffs, and if the head coach who brought an assistant to town gets fired, the coaches underneath him probably want to be on the market as quickly as possible to find a new job. If this hiring process lingers for a couple of weeks and the new coach decides to bring in an entirely new staff, it's going to be a frustrating situation for those assistants.

 

Chudzinski, meanwhile, gets stuck with a couple of bad raps. He left Carolina one year too early, as the defense took a leap forward and the team started to win close games while the offense he built around Cam Newton basically stayed stagnant. His year as a head coach was spent with a bunch of cast-offs at quarterback. Gordon and tight end Jordan Cameron went through enormous development spikes anyway. Chudzinski probably also won't get another NFL head coaching job anytime soon; teams will be hesitant to hire a guy who got fired by the lowly Browns after one season. He's likely stuck either returning to the offensive coordinator ranks or becoming a college head coach. You have to feel for Chudzinski, a guy who said the Browns opportunity was his "dream job" when the team hired him. He deserved more time in Cleveland. And the Browns, meanwhile, will continue the league's slowest crawl toward relevance.

[Spectralcow]

I think that the FO gave Chud the shaft (I don't think he should have been kept, but I don't think he should have been hired in the first place). But I have to point out that there it is again. In the second sentence of the third paragraph, they make it sound like Chud was the victim of being left with Campbell and Weeden at QB during the losing streak at the end, as if the beginning of the season had been radically different. Yes, they started Hoyer after Weeden hurt his thumb, but the Browns DID start the season with Weeden at QB. It's not like they entered Week 1 with high hopes for starting someone else all season and a series of tragedies left them with Weeden. Weeden was who they CHOSE as the starting QB going into the season.

[D Bone]

Yep, it's hard to think that the Browns didn't know exactly what they are doing, and have someone all but signed. The dog and pony show will be for the NFL's sake and to escape tampering charges.

[hoorta]

I think that the FO gave Chud the shaft (I don't think he should have been kept, but I don't think he should have been hired in the first place). But I have to point out that there it is again. In the second sentence of the third paragraph, they make it sound like Chud was the victim of being left with Campbell and Weeden at QB during the losing streak at the end, as if the beginning of the season had been radically different. Yes, they started Hoyer after Weeden hurt his thumb, but the Browns DID start the season with Weeden at QB. It's not like they entered Week 1 with high hopes for starting someone else all season and a series of tragedies left them with Weeden. Weeden was who they CHOSE as the starting QB going into the season.

 

Go look up Weeden's pre season stats and tell me you wouldn't have started him- they were more than respectable.

[hoorta]

How about some accountability from the Front office and Haslem? As a fanbase, we deserve it.

 

You pick a head coach and fire him 12 months later for sucking, that's YOUR bad. Not his.

 

In their presser they quoted "the fans deserve to win now". Kind of ironical, isn't it?

 

In my opinion, this upcoming HC hire and draft will determine the path of our team for the next decade. We will continue to be the worst franchise in the NFL or we will be brought back to our rightful glory with annual playoff/AFC Championship contending teams. I see no in between.

 

Our track record says 2014 is already in the toilet.

 

Jimmy was asked from a reporter. "Jimmy can you assure the fans that you don't have the 3 stooges running this organization"..........LMAO

 

Just make sure you fire the next head coach after a year when he goes 4-12,and send Banner and Lombardi packing along with him.

 

Typical Cleveland stumble and fumble. The franchise that is a laughing stock of America. Ward and Mack are counting the days when they can play for a WINNER!!!and Haden can't be far behind. The Browns get bottom tiered free agents that they have to pay All Pro money to, now they will need to top Cudzinski's 4/ $13 millon contract to attract a 2nd tier coach. Only players and coaches that are desperate or get handed a BOAT load of money would ever think of coming to Cleveland

 

Exactly- what coach will want to come in and take a shot at a totally disfunctional organization? The Lions and Redskins jobs are far superior to Cleveland. Ditto that on FA-s I bet that firing is going to drive Mack and Ward out of town.

 

 

^^This. Maybe we can go to a Pgh board and ask some of them to come here so they can impart their wisdom on us as to how a franchise stays relevant year after year after year through Stability at the coaching staff. I'd take 10 steelers fans here right now over some of these dumbasses that can't see 2014 is already over.

 

As unstable as it gets.

[HesTooPowerful]

It's a real shame what happened to Chudzinski. I'm not a Browns fan, but I know from being an Eagles fans that Joe Banner is a complete and total scumbag. I don't know if he had anything to do with the firing, but he is such a vindictive, spiteful, and petty person. I could tell you about some of the things he did in Philadelphia, and they were pretty low.

 

I haven't been following the Browns much, so I don't know how much power Banner has, but I'll just say that he was the cause of much of the turmoil that caused the Eagles to fall apart at the end of the Andy Reid era. Banner got power hungry and tried to stick his nose into everything as the years went on. During the final handful of seasons, Banner started to assert his power into personnel moves and wanted a say in draft picks, and the Eagles had some really poor drafts before these last couple when Banner lost control.

 

I thought Chudzinski was a good hire at the time. I liked what he did in Carolina. It's a shame it all went down this way.

[miktoxic]

too bad he didn't get the job done here.

 

i think haslam will keep hiring and firing until he "get's it right".

 

god bless that motherfucker!

[DieHardBrownsFan]

In the Press conference yesterday Banner said they made the decision to fire Chud on Saturday.

[ballpeen]

too bad he didn't get the job done here.

 

i think haslam will keep hiring and firing until he "get's it right".

 

god bless that motherfucker!

In a way, I agree. Get it done or hit the door. This team didn't get any better and lost game after game in the 4th qtr. Other coaches show some results....we need the same damn thing. Give us something to cling to.

[gftChris]

Read a theory that goes something like this:

 

Banner/Lombardi really like a QB (probably Manziel for this theory to hold up)

They want to take him with the first pick

Chud really doesn't like Manziel

They see Manziel as a critical piece to build around

Chud disagreed, and so to avoid the scenario like in washington where the coach/qb relationship seriously deteriorated, they got rid of the coach, as they inevitably would have done anyway.

 

It's a possibility I guess.