FanDuel - WFBC

November 23, 2009

Mangini wonders if Lions faked injuries: Cleveland Browns head coach Eric Mangini questioned if the Detroit Lions faked injuries in an effort to slow down the Browns' no-huddle offense.

posted by jjzucal to football at 05:10 PM - 38 comments

He needs more excuses than that. When you are up with less than 2:00 left, its 3rd and whatever(I think it was 5) don't pass the ball! Run it and take almost 0:40 off the clock. Detroit had no timeouts left. Take more time off with a delay of game on 4th, and you never have to worry about the injuries or that interference call. I think the Jets should have kept him.

posted by jojomfd1 at 05:50 PM on November 23

The Lions, who are 2-24 over the last 2 seasons, are crafty enough to fake injuries to stop the clock?

posted by MeatSaber at 05:57 PM on November 23

I feel that Mangini should spend a little less time at criticizing the Lions and a little more time analyzing how the Browns managed to blow that game after leading 24-3.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:11 PM on November 23

Whatever Mangini knows about faking injuries he learned from Belichick in Foxboro.

The classic moment I can think of right off the bat is from the Pats-Rams Super Bowl: Willie McGinest laying down near dead after a play when the Rams were in the red zone and driving to the goal line mighty fast.

After being medivacuated to the sideline, Willie was back on the field two plays later and promptly made a critical stop, whereupon he immediately launched into a full scale aerobic celebration dance, looking like the very image of a hale, hearty man.

posted by beaverboard at 07:01 PM on November 23

Since you've opened another string of thought, how about increasing the one-play disqualification for leaving due to injury? I'm thinking three or four plays. If someone's really injured, he would be out for at least that many plays. Keep it short, 1 or 2 plays, and you continue to invite these allegations.

posted by jjzucal at 07:41 PM on November 23

The Lions faking injuries should be the least of Mangini's concerns. The fact his team let Detroit come back and win the game like they were the latest "Greatest Show On Turf" is probably more problematic.

posted by dyams at 07:54 PM on November 23

McGinest did the exact same thing to the Colts. So yeah, Mangini would be one to recognize such tactics, but who does he blame for the timeout at the end of the game that allowed the inured Stafford to come back in and throw a TD? That was more a factor than the alleged fake injuries.

posted by curlyelk at 09:05 AM on November 24

Of course, they faked injuries. I'm quite sure that is what they are trained to do. Mangini better be training his players to do that as well. I remember the first time I heard about this I was watching MNF, when Jack Del Rio was "injured". I was concerned because I knew his mother. She told me that when she called him he told her that there was no need to worry, they just needed the timeout. That was in 1991 when Del Rio played for Dallas. Welcome to the NFL, Mangini.

posted by bperk at 10:15 AM on November 24

This just in: Eric Mangini has still not learned that blubbering, "But, but, but they, but they, but MOOOOMMMY!!!" does not win ball games or engender sympathy.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:28 AM on November 24

I'm sure teams fake injuries to slow the opposition. But I think Mangini is faking that he is a coach.

posted by Doehead at 10:53 AM on November 24

Oh, and on a different note, that hit on Stafford was unnecessarily vicious. Mosley left his feet to hit him.

posted by bperk at 11:02 AM on November 24

I feel that Mangini should spend a little less time at criticizing the Lions and a little more time analyzing how the Browns managed to blow that game after leading 24-3.

Amen YYM. I was at the MNF game against the Ravens two weeks ago. I think about 2/3 of the stadium started the chant "We want Gruden". I'm not sure if it was heard on TV or commented on by him, but things are getting rough for Mangini around here.

bperk, Mosely was in the air, but he didn't launch himself into Stafford's head. I believe it looked worse due to the way Stafford landed, it looked to me like he may have broke his collar bone, or dislocated his shoulder. The injury he suffered was from his shoulder hitting the ground, Mosley was in the air before Stafford threw the ball.

Curlyelk, that timeout was another stupid move by the Browns, the biggest was giving up that 21 point lead.

posted by jojomfd1 at 12:55 PM on November 24

Whatever Mangini knows about faking injuries he learned from Belichick in Foxboro.

Speaking of Bill B, I wonder if the failures of Crennel, Mangini and Weis have done anything or will do anything to take the bloom off of Belichick in terms of overall legacy (i.e., that portion of legacy related to the mythical "Belichick Coaching Tree," which itself as an offshoot of the Parcells tree). Belichick is still an all-time great coach, but I just wonder if this keeps him from keeping company in the Hall with Parcells or Bill Walsh or folks like that. Of course, I am sure there are some successes as well (going back to his time with Cleveland -- I know Nick Saban (mixed success in pros, big success in college) was defensive coordinator for Belichick with the Brown's), it's just that it seems there have been some pretty high profile busts, at least from the New England ranks.

posted by holden at 01:47 PM on November 24

I know Nick Saban (mixed success in pros, big success in college) was defensive coordinator for Belichick with the Brown's), it's just that it seems there have been some pretty high profile busts, at least from the New England ranks.

Wouldn't that increase the Belichek lore if his assistants were only marginal coaches to begin with?

posted by dfleming at 02:00 PM on November 24

Wouldn't that increase the Belichek lore if his assistants were only marginal coaches to begin with?

I guess you could look at it one of two ways: (1) he is such an outstanding coach that he can turn mediocre coaching talent into outstanding assistants; or (2) the failure of his assistants as head coaches elsewhere suggests that he is not a mentor/coach to coaches who act as missionaries/emissaries for his style and system as they go out into the world (a la Walsh or Parcells).

posted by holden at 02:11 PM on November 24

I'd tend to side with dfleming's take here, but I think that's too hard to disentangle in the NFL. There are just so many variables. Put another way: What did Bill Parcells do when he didn't have Belichick around?

posted by yerfatma at 03:10 PM on November 24

Parcells and Belichick both started at the Giants at the same time. If Belichick was the genius behind the operation, then he should have gotten the head coaching job instead of Parcells. I'm pretty sure Parcells turned the Patriots around before Belichick got there as well.

A coaching tree is when a coach has a bunch of coaches come through that turn into successful coaches. Belichick doesn't have a coaching tree yet. It could be that the success of the Patriots have a lot to do with the success of the entire organization since Kraft bought it, and can't be attributed solely or even mainly to Belichick's coaching genius.

posted by bperk at 04:30 PM on November 24

I'm pretty sure Parcells turned the Patriots around before Belichick got there as well.

He turned them from a god-awful team into a middle-of-the-road team. He never took them to the next level.

Belichick doesn't have a coaching tree yet.

I'm not sure that's in the job description.

Put it this way; Belichek found people who excelled at what they did; he wasn't concerned with their ability to run things on their own. If I'm a project manager, I'm not trying to hire other project managers; I'm hiring specific people for specific skills. His coaches have, consistently, made the most of the talent they put on the field by designing good offenses and defenses. That doesn't mean they're good at identifying what they need and/or surrounding themselves with good coaches who fill in where they lack.

It could be that the success of the Patriots have a lot to do with the success of the entire organization since Kraft bought it, and can't be attributed solely or even mainly to Belichick's coaching genius.

No coach, in the history of the NFL, has won many games without personnel on and off the field making key contributions. Belichek is no exception.

posted by dfleming at 04:39 PM on November 24

For what it's worth, here's a listing of coaches under Belichick who have gone on to other coaching gigs (head coach and otherwise) and football jobs. Pretty mixed bag.

posted by holden at 04:46 PM on November 24

He turned them from a god-awful team into a middle-of-the-road team. He never took them to the next level.

He took them to the playoffs. That's not middle-of-the-road for a team that hadn't been the playoff for a long time.

No coach, in the history of the NFL, has won many games without personnel on and off the field making key contributions. Belichek is no exception.

Of course, but the "genius" of Pioli doesn't get nearly as much attention, and I think Kraft is probably one of the best (if not the best) owner in the league.

posted by bperk at 05:01 PM on November 24

He took them to the playoffs. That's not middle-of-the-road for a team that hadn't been the playoff for a long time.

Hell, he took them to the Superbowl. That said, he was also a .500 coach (32-32) with the Pats. That's quite middle of the road.

He inherited a team that went 5-11 in the first season. Then again, Belichek did too; they went 5-11 his first season. They're now 109-45 under his tenure.

They both inherited badly losing teams; the only difference is, Belichek's sustained his success long-term, through significant personnel, coaching and administration changes. He also closed the deal three times and lead them to a perfect season.

posted by dfleming at 07:26 PM on November 24

He also closed the deal three times and lead them to a perfect season.


Not quite perfect. After reviewing the tapes, I see that their record for their best season under Secret Agent Belichick is 17-1 .

posted by tommytrump at 08:01 PM on November 24

After reviewing the tapes, I see that their record for their best season under Secret Agent Belichick is 17-1 .

Historically, records for regular season and postseason are separated. I know that everyone loves to rub it in how they couldn't close the deal, but Belichek gets credit for a 16-0 regular season and a 2-1 postseason as far as standard statisticians go.

posted by dfleming at 08:42 PM on November 24

I'm not rubbing anything in.

There has only been one perfect season in the N.F.L. That being the 1972 Miami Dolphins 17-0 record. The Patriots season where they went 16-0 in the regular season, and 2-1 in the playoffs, while great statistically, came to somewhat less than ideal conclusion. The Patriots season was not over after the regular schedule. Their final record for the season was 18-1. I was never the best math student, but to my mind, that's not perfect.

posted by tommytrump at 09:51 PM on November 24

Speaking of Bill B, I wonder if the failures of Crennel, Mangini and Weis have done anything or will do anything to take the bloom off of Belichick in terms of overall legacy

Why should it? His job is to develop a championship football team, not championship coaches.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:48 PM on November 24

I was never the best math student, but to my mind, that's not perfect.

Fair enough. I think perfect isn't the right word, and I apologize for that. It felt imperfect not to put it all together in the final game but that's life.

posted by dfleming at 07:47 AM on November 25

Belichek's sustained his success long-term, through significant personnel, coaching and administration changes

Parcells clearly doesn't do long-term.

Has Belichick made the playoffs with Brady? I can't remember, but I don't think he has. That is where things like coaching trees matter. Was Walsh's success just lightning in the bottle at the 49ers? Obviously not because he has an extensive coaching tree that have successfully implemented the offensive system he devised. I don't know that matters for judging the quality of Belichick's coaching and it obviously matters not one bit to the Pats, but it probably matters for teams hiring other Belichick disciples. I'd say it does matter for judging a coach as legend (which Walsh obviously is) or judging their long-term impact on the game.

posted by bperk at 08:08 AM on November 25

I'm pretty sure Parcells turned the Patriots around before Belichick got there as well.

He definitely improved the personnel, but they'd gone 6-10 the season before Belichick arrived. They went 11-5 and to the Superbowl that year. I'm not actually trying to deny Parcells' talent, just to say it's so hard to judge a head coach in the NFL versus his coordinators.

posted by yerfatma at 09:01 AM on November 25

You still have to get the head coach credit for picking the right coordinator and staying out of the way. Dungy did that when he went to Indianapolis. Moore and Manning had a good offensive system going, and Dungy had the sense enough to let them do what they do so well. Some coaches let their ego get in the way of good sense.

Has Belichick made the playoffs with Brady?

Umm, that was obviously supposed to be "without".

posted by bperk at 09:21 AM on November 25

Has Belichick made the playoffs with Brady?

Not to nitpick, but how many playoff teams did Bill Walsh put together without hall-of-famer Joe Montana?

I'd say it does matter for judging a coach as legend (which Walsh obviously is) or judging their long-term impact on the game.

Walsh also has the benefit of 30 years of development of his coaches; Belichek has, what, 7? That's kind of unfair. Several of Belichek's coordinators are currently the youngest head coaches in the NFL. It's fair to think that they might develop into bona fide head coaches in the next 25 years.

posted by dfleming at 10:31 AM on November 25

Why should it? His job is to develop a championship football team, not championship coaches.

Because, for better or worse, this seems to be part of the criteria on which coaches (at least coaches of the more recent era of football -- you never hear about the Lombardi coaching tree, at least I have not) are judged in terms of historical legacy. I do not think it diminishes one bit his standing as one of the game's premier coaches in terms of what his teams did; it is simply a matter of his overall legacy and contributions to the game. Kind of like a Kentucky Derby winning horse siring other triple crown race winners -- not a prerequisite for greatness, but just enhances the legend, so to speak.

Walsh also has the benefit of 30 years of development of his coaches; Belichek has, what, 7?

I believe that between Cleveland and New England, Belichick is currently in his 14th year of being a head coach.

posted by holden at 10:36 AM on November 25

It seems odd to me that we'd minimize the impact of a successful NFL coach because his assistants didn't amount to much when they got their own coaching gigs. Jimmy Johnson was an incredible NFL coach regardless of what Norv Turner, Dave Wannstedt and Butch Davis accomplished after leaving his staff. Tom Landry is a Hall of Famer regardless of whether Dan Reeves and Mike Ditka went on to successful NFL coaching careers.

posted by rcade at 11:01 AM on November 25

It seems odd to me that we'd minimize the impact of a successful NFL coach because his assistants didn't amount to much when they got their own coaching gigs.

Listen, I am not advocating for this type of approach. It just seems to me that this is how the NFL pundits and opinion-makers see things.

posted by holden at 11:15 AM on November 25

It seems odd to me that we'd minimize the impact of a successful NFL coach because his assistants didn't amount to much when they got their own coaching gigs.

It seems right to me. Obviously, you can be a successful coach (like Jimmy Johnson) and have no coaching tree. But, it is debatable whether a coach like that has an impact pass his coaching tenure. While a coach that spawns lots of other successful coaches impacts the league in a more long lasting way.

posted by bperk at 11:45 AM on November 25

While a coach that spawns lots of other successful coaches impacts the league in a more long lasting way.

That's kind of a craps shoot, though; I'd prefer to judge a person based on what they've directly done, not based on what is partially out of their hands. Just because someone was an assistant of your does not mean their success is based on your teaching. In fact, assistants often rebel against their predecessors and end up running completely different offenses and defenses from their "mentors."

I appreciate what you're saying, I just think it's unfair to hold something that's largely out of their control as their legacy.

posted by dfleming at 12:02 PM on November 25

An interesting look at the NFL's coaching trees

According to the author, Parcells and Belichick are both part of the Paul Brown Forest.

The difference between Parcells and Belichick is that Belichick built a dynasty while Parcells is the mercenary hired for a quick fix (with the exception of the Giants, I suppose). As a fan, I'd much rather have Belichick than Parcells coaching my team.

posted by cjets at 01:11 PM on November 25

Has Belichick made the playoffs with[out] Brady?

As a Denver fan, I have to say that the perception of Shanahan changed dramatically when Elway retired and Davis went down with injury. He went from the "Mastermind" to the guy who couldn't get it done in the post-season.

If Belichick continues to win post-Brady, then he solidifies his credentials as a legend. If he fails, then we'll always wonder how big a role Brady played.

posted by offsides at 01:15 PM on November 25

I declare this thread to now be 100% drifted off topic.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:36 PM on November 25

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.