Box Score: Indians 2, Tigers 1
May 24, 2012
While We’re Waiting… Tristan a project, rewarding winners and losing velocity
May 25, 2012Jim Brown apparently hasn’t changed his mind about Trent Richardson. Now he’s taking it a step further and questioning the commitment of Mike Holmgren to Tony Grossi.
“What have I said about the Browns other than the fact that Richardson is an ordinary back? There’s so much I could say. So you tell all those people that want to look at me, look at what you’ve got. You’re sitting on a mess. You’ve got a guy that doesn’t give interviews except in other cities. I ask all the people in Cleveland, do you get the impression that Mr. Holmgren wants to be there? If you do, then tell me.”
I wouldn’t expect Jim Brown to like Mike Holmgren very much seeing as he was the one who seemingly took Jim Brown’s paycheck away. As for his thoughts on Trent Richardson, I think I understand where he is coming from.
Trent Richardson strikes me as the kind of back that needs reps in order to break a few. He isn’t Adrian Peterson or Barry Sanders it wouldn’t seem. Even still, Jim Brown seems to have a hard time articulating exactly what he means through the haze of bitterness.
[Related: Barry Sanders: Trent Richardson is Not “Ordinary”]
89 Comments
” Inability to address the substance of my post noted.”
hey, your words.
also, please stop the site pimping. we get it. you have a blog. you write stuff there. you don’t have to constantly reference threads you have written, testimonial pages you have, etc.
site pimping is lame. state your opinions as they apply to this thread.
site pimping is lame
Since you brought it up, though, what do you think would happen if we submitted the content of the Frowns comment section and the content of the comment section here to an independent panel for a quality assessment? We could get a journalism prof, and english prof, a creative writing prof and a poli-sci prof.
It shouldn’t be hard to understand that more productive discussion results when distracting/self-serving nonsense is removed from the thread. And as always, I’m glad to discuss any specific comment that was deleted and why.
I see, so any time I point to something at my site, it’s “site pimping,” even if it’s plainly relevant to my response.
I think I’m done here, today. Thx.
Did you miss the part where Ben said “I live in a weird world where your illogical arguments make sense only to you”?
I was only responding to that with the best evidence I know to counteract it. Interesting that you have a problem with that.
you come on here with a condescending attitude and your answer for any objection to your opinions is for us to go read your blog.
i don’t really care, but it was annoying me that every post in this thread you were referencing your page, old stuff your wrote etc.
bode my good and respected friend: pete gets plenty of hits without any pimping.
however, i dont mind endorsing (pimping if you will) on his behalf –> if you havent stopped by his site, do. generally a good read and always worth a look.
Easily annoyed, I see. I’m only talking about the substance of the ideas expressed in the post and in the comments. The response that I’ve gotten so far has served well to prove my point. Today’s Frowns post might make this even easier for you to understand. You should check it out.
I know he does just fine. As noted I was just getting annoyed that his goto argument on this thread was “go read my blog”
now that right there is funny. good way to end it 🙂
#fistbump
I’m relatively new to reading these types of blogs but are you saying that not One other person in the professional media or the blogosphere said we should be patient with Mangini? You were the only person with a Cleveland specific voice that said give the guy time? I find that hard to believe.
Also you are whitewashing the point I made which was that you accuse Craig of not being objective when you yourself aren’t objective, but in your worldview you have twisted things so that it is acceptable. You claim that you have written for two years on things that make it acceptable to always be negative, if Craig has written for two years on why it is acceptable to be positive, why does your bias get to be right and his wrong? If you want to hatchet the FO by all means do so. I agree that they need it sometimes. However to act like you are “reporting the truth” simply because you have an antagonistic relationship with this regime is a lie. If we take any one given fact you will have an opinion on it and Craig will, yours will slant negative, Craig’s will slant positive, it doesn’t make either right or wrong, just different.
Now I couldn’t help but notice you used that point to sort of gloss over the real question I asked of you. So I turn it back to you, if you want to address specific points with actual events and quotes that support a stance that “Holmgren doesn’t want to be here” I’d be happy to engage. If you have points to make here please do so, I’m not going to go reading your old blog posts and then ask questions of you regarding them. Make your points and have discourse.
It did get a little better in 2010, but you’d be shocked if you went back and read what people were writing back in 2009.
Anyway, the issue isn’t whether someone has a ‘slant’ (aka an ‘opinion’), it’s whether that opinion is justified. I’ve explained why the one here isn’t. Tell me why I’m wrong instead of calling me the “anti-Pollyanna.”
As for Brown’s statement that Holmgren doesn’t want to be here, one could point to the fact that Holmgren actually does go on the radio to talk about how he’ll be back in Seattle sooner than people think, that he literally can’t contain his disdain for Cleveland’s representatives in the local press, and that he’s acted extremely by any definition on an interest in finding jobs for his old high school friend’s clientsas some evidence that Brown is right. But probably even more persuasive than those specific points is the general fact that every decision Holmgren has made has thus far led to nothing but regression on the field and embarrassment off it. It’s certainly easy enough to see where Brown is coming from.
“It shouldn’t be hard to understand that more productive discussion results when distracting/self-serving nonsense is removed from the thread.”
Should we all check out your blog to confirm this?
“We could get a journalism prof, [an] english prof, a creative writing prof and a poli-sci prof.”
Why don’t we just go straight for the tape measure to compare respective “manhoods?”
To be fair I have seen testimonals that claim that the BeDazzler will make you shine like a star. When it comes to testimonials all that glitters is not gold.
Posted this on Frowns, but it seems to me that Grossi did a poor job of following up with Mr. Brown on his thoughts about why Holmgren “is a mess”, because if his only reason is not giving local radio interviews, then it sounds like he’s pretty bitter to me. how often do you hear the President of the Team giving local radio interviews in addition to the several press conferences he’s done anyway and where is it proven that there is any correlation with team success?
Furthermore, saying a comment like “You’ve got a guy that doesn’t give interviews except in other cities.” clearly shows his age and how out of touch he is with how the media works these days. especially since I’m sure most Browns fans rarely are able to listen to local interviews live and download and listen to them at their convenience, which was the case with the TWO interviews he did in Seattle, with his former on-air partners for the radio show he did in Seattle for 10 years. every Browns fan I know listened to those interviews the same way they listened to the recent interviews Holmgren has done with local radio, in addition to the several press conferences he has done through the team over the 2.5 years since he’s been here, they downloaded them.On a side note, the guys in Seattle did a pretty good job in asking questions that Browns fans wanted to hear, maybe even more directly than our crack team of local Browns journalists who get ripped to shreds around here, so not really sure what the relevance is on who was asking the question and where Holmgren was when he answered them.The dude is 76 years of age, so he definitely is an old man, who has expressed his bitterness on several topics over the years, not just with regards to Mike Holmgren, who essentially took $500K of easy money away from the guy. I’m only 35, but I’d be pretty bitter about that as well, especially since it seems it was Mr. Brown’s primary source of income.
might be right on Holmgren…who might be riding his own coattails of the early 90’s(meaning LAST CENTURY)
Can we change the headline to just: “and Jim Brown is still talking…”
It’s writing in English about writing that’s in English, if that helps.
Appreciate the reference to comparisons that speak for themselves. Agreed that the panel probably isn’t necessary.
Your complex is indeed complex.
Anyway, the issue isn’t whether someone has a ‘slant’ (aka an ‘opinion’), it’s whether that opinion is justified. I’ve explained why the one here isn’t. Tell me why I’m wrong instead of calling me the “anti-Pollyanna.”
You aren’t wrong, you just have a different opinion. Where you are wrong is in assuming your opinion is sufficent to be taken as fact.
Here is my take on the Browns and why I am okay with the direction
I think that a positive opinion of Holmgren is justified because as I’ve said he has brought consistency and unanmity to a front office that has never, ever, had it since the return of this team. I feel that the team has had good success in drafting players who have played effectively. I believe that they have treated what we call a “rebuild” as if they were year one of a brand new franchise, and that this is why there is no quick fix. These are some of the reasons I personally am being patient with them, and have a general approval of how they have peformed.
The reason I call you the anti-pollyanna is that you will no doubt have very specific reasons why each thing I listed is wrong. That is the definition of an anti-Pollyanna, you find the bad in everything that this regime does, therefore I feel the name is justified.
As a daily reader and enjoyer of both WFNY and CF, this comment is almost enough to make me stop visiting this site.
Says the guy issuing ad hominem attacks from behind an anonymous internet handle.
As to Holmgren leaving I have no idea what finding jobs for old friends has to do with him leaving town, If you haven’t taken the quote about “being back in Seattle sooner than you think” out of context, then I can still respond by saying that in his interviews on 850 and 92 he said aboslutley that he would honor his 5 year contract.
“But probably even more persuasive than those specific points is the general fact that every decision Holmgren has made has thus far led to nothing but regression on the field and embarrassment off it.”
Again this is what makes arguing with you little more than an exercise in amusement. That is not a “general fact” it is your opinion.
Let me school you a little bit
A fact is that Holmgren terminated the contract of Eric Mangini. Its provable because all parties involved admit it to be true, and we can check to see if Eric is still employed by the Browns.
Whether this was the right decision, whether Holmgren should have done it sooner or not at all. These things are OPINION. These are the things that you present as “general facts” they are not. If you assembled the forum of college educators that you suggest to compare these forums the first thing they would do is tell you as much.
there is nothing ordinary about T-Rich. I have followed his career since he was a senior in high school and he is the most talented RB I have seen in person. He is known more for his freakish strength, but that isn’t his game as many “experts” like to say. He is pushing 230lbs and runs a 4.43-40, cat-like quickness combined with strength is why he is so unique. There are faster RB’s, but no RB who is faster than the kid is anywhere close to as strong as him. He also sees the game, the defense, the field very well and is a great receiver.
Brown was great but he played against athletes who (80% of them) wouldn’t make an NFL roster in this day and age so it’s a moot point. put T-Rich in the backfield when Brown played and imagine the results…………..carry on
Isn’t that what the internet is for?
yes, it’s not as if Holmgren did anything since the early 90s. like make 3 SBs with 2 different teams including a SB victory.
Why because I don’t delete comments?
I’ve written many articles that talk about things that this front office has gotten wrong. I’ve written at least couple about specific P.R. gaffes and how simple it would be to get things right in that respect.
I’m simply pointing out that I could delete your comment and point to links of multiple articles that I’ve written that make your “Pollyanna” comment seem silly.
I could then talk about how hard I work and how it is much too much effort on my part to allow it to be dragged down by a comment that says something that characterizes my position in a manner that I don’t think is fair.
That’s what you do. I think it’s completely wrong. You reserve the right at your site, but I find it distasteful and obnoxious.
I don’t do it here.
“I could … talk about how hard I work and how it is much too much effort on my part to allow it to be dragged down by a comment that says something that characterizes my position in a manner that I don’t think
is fair. That’s what you do.”
Absolutely correct. And I’ll keep doing it.
“I think it’s completely wrong. You reserve the right at your site, but I find it distasteful and obnoxious.”
Well, there’s no accounting for taste. Or your inability to explain your position on your assessment of what’s right and wrong here.
“I could delete your comment and point to links of multiple articles that I’ve written that make your “Pollyanna” comment seem silly.”
You’d have a hard time doing that just based on what you’ve written at this post alone, but even if you could point to a few posts that are fairly characterized as what you’ve described, I’m confident I could find five “illusion of overnight success”/”here’s why you guys shouldn’t be mad at Holmgren” posts for each one of them.
“I think I’m done here for today.”
That must be it.
sure, there may have been more to it than money, most likely his pride, because it can’t be fun going from $500K in salary down to $100K for a figurehead position. he admittedly has said he has anger management issues, so it seems reasonable to assume that his anger about the situation led to stubbornness and his refusal to accept the reduced salary.
as far as “lack of respect shown to him by Holmgren and Lerner”, that also is debatable, as the only facts we know is that they wanted him in a reduced role, and due to his off-field transgressions and off-color remarks about several issues over the past several years may have precluded him from the same royalty status of receiving a half a million bucks to basically do nothing.
on a side note, shout out to WFNY for allowing Frownie to comment on their site and most importantly their non-censuring policy, now I can troll his anti-Holmgren bias without him deleting most of my comments.
Didn’t he also said he didn’t see the hit on McCoy? Didn’t he also say they administered a concussion test on him, and then backtracked? Didn’t he also tell McCoy he wouldn’t draft a QB in the first round? Didn’t he also say its different now?
Really…I guess the Browns mgt, like me and many others didn’t realize the line was fixed and they drafted 2 offensive linemen just for fun; rats maybe next time you can save them from wasting draft picks. As far as Colt, he may not be the answer but Weeden is right?
Craig, perhaps it’s because I expect better of you. Perhaps it’s because I imagined that while you didn’t really approve of the lowbrow commentary on your website, you tolerated it, much as I would, out of a sense of “fairness” or inclusiveness. And that you would be thankful for intelligent, insightful reader comments, even (especially?) when it brings a contrary viewpoint. Instead you react with threats of the emptiest variety.
Frowns is not the only one that reads your articles on this administration with the “polyanna” filter on, I assure you.
Important to mention: that’s not to say that I don’t enjoy your stuff. But stop the crappy threats.
I’d rather he makes mean-spirited comments to the media than go beats some innocent women up..
I still feel JimBrown was the greatest running back in the NFL. They play more games,
different offenses, etc. It’s a different game now, but Brown was the baddest. I’m particularly thankful that i did get to see him play in one game, unfortunately i probably wasn”t old enough at the time to recognize the historical significance of it. As far as his
remarks, it was in an interview. really doesn’t mean a whole lot but the media wants to blow things out of proportion, especially in the off season when there isn’t much to talk about.
Holmgren said he would like to welcome him back with open arms and i would truly like to see it. Just my opinion by an avid old Browns fan. And everybody is entitled to their opinions, including Jim Brown, even though i truly hope Richardson will be a great back.
The Browns need Richardson and I think they still need and want Jim Brown too. Thanks