...a few top line stats two years before Head Coaching tenure; two years as Head Coach; and two years after Head Coaching tenure:
Two Seasons Before Pat Shurmur (2009 & 2010)
Wins: 10
Losses: 22
Points For: 516
Points Against: 707
Differential: -191
Avg. offensive YPG: 275
Avg. defensive YPG: 370
Net Differential YPG: -95
Pat Shurmur as Head Coach (2011 & 2012)
Wins: 9
Losses: 23 Losses
Points For: 520
Points Against: 675
Differential: -155
Avg. offensive YPG: 302
Avg. defensive YPG: 348
Net Differential YPG: -46
Two Seasons After Pat Shurmur (2013 & 2014)
Wins: 11
Losses: 21
Points For 607
Points Against 743
Differential -136
Avg. offensive YPG: 332
Avg. defensive YPG: 349
Net Differential YPG: -17
Why... what's negative about the comparison I made?
Shurmur's 5-11 team had significantly less talent than the Browns team that just went 0-16. It is amazing that Shurmur won 5 games that season especially with Seneca Wallace, Colt McCoy, and Thad Lewis at QB.
Quote:
Negative Nancy.
Why... what's negative about the comparison I made?
Your point that your numbers indicate is that the Browns did worse the years Shurmur was HC. I hated the McAdoo higher but once he was official I got behind him. Shurmur has not even had his first practice...give the man some time.
Care to repeat it since some of us missed for forget it?
Quote:
Both did more in Cleveland than their records would indicate. The fact that they did not finish 0-16 each year says a lot. Mike Holmgren had completely decimated the franchise from a personnel standpoint.
Shurmur's 5-11 team had significantly less talent than the Browns team that just went 0-16. It is amazing that Shurmur won 5 games that season especially with Seneca Wallace, Colt McCoy, and Thad Lewis at QB.
Exactly +1
Even this post, he lists three sets of data without commentary or context.
Basically he spent time to do a meaningless data dump.
Emphasis on dump....
The team's SRS rankings over the 6 years were: 27th, 20th, 26th, 25th, 29th, 25th
But I'm not sure what people are expecting. Obviously the team had Joe Thomas, though I'm unable to evaluate the rest of the talent on the offensive line. But at skill positions:
In 2011, Shurmur's QB was Colt McCoy, his RB was Peyton Hillis, and his top WRs were Greg Little and Mohammad Massequoi.
In 2012, the QB was Brandon Weeden, the RB was Trent Richardson, and the top WRs were rookie Josh Gordon and Greg Little.
The team's SRS rankings over the 6 years were: 27th, 20th, 26th, 25th, 29th, 25th
But I'm not sure what people are expecting. Obviously the team had Joe Thomas, though I'm unable to evaluate the rest of the talent on the offensive line. But at skill positions:
In 2011, Shurmur's QB was Colt McCoy, his RB was Peyton Hillis, and his top WRs were Greg Little and Mohammad Massequoi.
In 2012, the QB was Brandon Weeden, the RB was Trent Richardson, and the top WRs were rookie Josh Gordon and Greg Little.
Your point is well taken... the top line stats for the different 2-year intervals indicate that not a whole lot can be gleaned about Pat Shurmur's cup of coffee in Cleveland.
Amen to that!
Quote:
Negative Nancy.
Why... what's negative about the comparison I made?
Pretty much all of it.
For sure, what Shurmur does here is all that counts.
I posted these stats because, when Shurmur was first hired I noted that several posts mentioned he did a pretty good job in Cleveland with what he had, and that he was definitely better than the shit-show that's in Cleveland today.
So, I thought I would take a fast look-see at Shurmur's Cleveland tenure in the context of his immediate predecessor and successor. And in that context I couldn't really see anything obvious that stuck out one way or another.
Nor in this case, Shurmur.
Thanks to Wikipedia I can get the starting QB's for that 6 year period:
2014 Brian Hoyer (13) / Johnny Manziel (2) / Connor Shaw (1)
2013 Jason Campbell (8) / Brandon Weeden (5) / Brian Hoyer (3)
2012 Brandon Weeden (15) / Thad Lewis (1)
2011 Colt McCoy (13) / Seneca Wallace (3)
2010 Colt McCoy (8) / Jake Delhomme (4) / Seneca Wallace (4)
2009 Brady Quinn (9) / Derek Anderson (7)
Quote:
Your point is well taken... the top line stats for the different 2-year intervals indicate that not a whole lot can be gleaned about Pat Shurmur's cup of coffee in Cleveland.
so what's the point of the thread?
See 11:21 post.
There's a point to the thread?
You posted stats without context from Shurmur's tenure and the one's he was sandwiched in, couldn't draw a conclusion, but found them threadworthy anyway?
Awesome....
(:-)
You can interpret the info any way you choose. Don’t blame the messenger this time.
Ivan15 : 1:20 pm : link : reply
Give him a break.
He posted three sets of data with no context or commentary.
Later, he said he didn't know what to make of the data.
So what was the point?
Quote:
He's been hired. What matters is what he does here.
For sure, what Shurmur does here is all that counts.
I posted these stats because, when Shurmur was first hired I noted that several posts mentioned he did a pretty good job in Cleveland with what he had, and that he was definitely better than the shit-show that's in Cleveland today.
So, I thought I would take a fast look-see at Shurmur's Cleveland tenure in the context of his immediate predecessor and successor. And in that context I couldn't really see anything obvious that stuck out one way or another.
I don't think it's easy to glean something from the numbers, but this fact plays in Shurmur's favor.
The team was worse before Shurmur.
He improved it during his tenure.
The team continued to improve after Shurmur and for Pettine.
It is not out of the realm that the foundation that Shurmur was laying, which showed momentum, was starting to materialize for Pettine and he got the credit (if you can call it that) for the improved statistical output.
As a side note I'm surprised that the Browns dumped Pettine. I remember his run better than Shurmur's and I thought they looked like a team on the rise.
You can interpret the info any way you choose. Don’t blame the messenger this time.
Thank you!
Quote:
M.S. made a fair point. No reason to beat on him again today.
Ivan15 : 1:20 pm : link : reply
Give him a break.
He posted three sets of data with no context or commentary.
Later, he said he didn't know what to make of the data.
So what was the point?
Your reading for comprehension is sometimes quite selective. And I never said that I "didn't know what to make of the data."
What I did say is that I posted these stats because, when Shurmur was first hired I noted that several posts mentioned he did a pretty good job in Cleveland with what he had, and that he was definitely better than the shit-show that's in Cleveland today.
But when I took a fast look-see at Shurmur's Cleveland tenure in the context of his immediate predecessor and successor, I didn't see anything obvious that stuck out one way or the other (better or worse).
Now, if you want to say that Shurmur was better than Cleveland's current Head Coach, no argument here. Never was.
Quote:
what was the point?
Quote:
M.S. made a fair point. No reason to beat on him again today.
Ivan15 : 1:20 pm : link : reply
Give him a break.
He posted three sets of data with no context or commentary.
Later, he said he didn't know what to make of the data.
So what was the point?
Your reading for comprehension is sometimes quite selective. And I never said that I "didn't know what to make of the data."
What I did say is that I posted these stats because, when Shurmur was first hired I noted that several posts mentioned he did a pretty good job in Cleveland with what he had, and that he was definitely better than the shit-show that's in Cleveland today.
But when I took a fast look-see at Shurmur's Cleveland tenure in the context of his immediate predecessor and successor, I didn't see anything obvious that stuck out one way or the other (better or worse).
Now, if you want to say that Shurmur was better than Cleveland's current Head Coach, no argument here. Never was.
Except there was more than just the numbers to look at. Shurmur's first year they were clearly rebuilding and somehow managed to finish 4-12 with Colt McCoy and Seneca Wallace at QB, Peyton Hillis as their top RB, rookie Greg Little and Josh Cribbs at WR, rookie Jordan Cameron at TE, a decent OL with Alex Mack and Joe Thomas, and a 2nd year Joe Haden on D. The rest of the roster was crap. Despite that lack of talent, 6 of their losses were by a TD or less. Another 4 were between 1 and 2 TD's. They improved to 5-11 the following year adding rookies Josh Gordon and Travis Benjamin at WR and Trent Richardson at RB. They also added Tashaun Gipson on Defense. After a lost year under Rob Chudzinski, they improved to 7-9 under Mike Pettine largely on the backs of players drafted and/or developed under Pat Shurmur.
And let's be clear, you posted a data dump of three years without saying one word about what it meant.
Not until you started getting shit
And let's be clear, you posted a data dump of three years without saying one word about what it meant.
Not until you started getting shit
Now you're just blabbing, and not reading.
This was my last post to you:
"But when I took a fast look-see at Shurmur's Cleveland tenure in the context of his immediate predecessor and successor, I didn't see anything obvious that stuck out one way or the other (better or worse)."
Do you not understand what this means?
It means that there was nothing in the data I posted that indicated that Shurmur was really any better or any worse than the Head Coaches right before him and right after him.
Quote:
In comment 13825425 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
what was the point?
Quote:
M.S. made a fair point. No reason to beat on him again today.
Ivan15 : 1:20 pm : link : reply
Give him a break.
He posted three sets of data with no context or commentary.
Later, he said he didn't know what to make of the data.
So what was the point?
Your reading for comprehension is sometimes quite selective. And I never said that I "didn't know what to make of the data."
What I did say is that I posted these stats because, when Shurmur was first hired I noted that several posts mentioned he did a pretty good job in Cleveland with what he had, and that he was definitely better than the shit-show that's in Cleveland today.
But when I took a fast look-see at Shurmur's Cleveland tenure in the context of his immediate predecessor and successor, I didn't see anything obvious that stuck out one way or the other (better or worse).
Now, if you want to say that Shurmur was better than Cleveland's current Head Coach, no argument here. Never was.
Except there was more than just the numbers to look at. Shurmur's first year they were clearly rebuilding and somehow managed to finish 4-12 with Colt McCoy and Seneca Wallace at QB, Peyton Hillis as their top RB, rookie Greg Little and Josh Cribbs at WR, rookie Jordan Cameron at TE, a decent OL with Alex Mack and Joe Thomas, and a 2nd year Joe Haden on D. The rest of the roster was crap. Despite that lack of talent, 6 of their losses were by a TD or less. Another 4 were between 1 and 2 TD's. They improved to 5-11 the following year adding rookies Josh Gordon and Travis Benjamin at WR and Trent Richardson at RB. They also added Tashaun Gipson on Defense. After a lost year under Rob Chudzinski, they improved to 7-9 under Mike Pettine largely on the backs of players drafted and/or developed under Pat Shurmur.
You make several interesting points regarding personnel, and clearly one needs to do that in order to fully assess the performance of the Head Coach.
That said, I suspect that his immediate predecessor and successor weren't exactly working with a Super Bowl-like talented roster either.
Patricia? McDaniels? Schwartz? __________?
Basically you put it out there for no fucking reason.
that was my point from the beginning. what the fuck was I supposed to read, anyway - it was a bunch of statistics.
Like I said - why the fuck do you think a data dump is threadworthy??
Patricia? McDaniels? Schwartz? __________?
Wilks
I was impressed.
Anyone who thinks he did a "good" job is kidding themselves.
From his own mouth he learned a lot. That's the most you can ask for in a failed job. He's been around winners and losers, hopefully he's observant and self aware enough to take from each and apply it.
Anyone who thinks he did a "good" job is kidding themselves.
From his own mouth he learned a lot. That's the most you can ask for in a failed job. He's been around winners and losers, hopefully he's observant and self aware enough to take from each and apply it.
Dead on!