Browns Trying To Right The Wrongs They Inflicted On Themselves

The NFL playoffs started this past weekend, a grim reminder that it was only one year ago the Cleveland Browns were participating. Yes, it might seem like eons ago, but it was only 12 months.

While others want to sound the woe is us card when it comes to the Browns (as usual), we can’t get past the point that the organization did this to themselves. They replaced several offensive coaches, in essence tearing apart something that needed building upon.

The Charles Barkley quote keeps ringing in our ears, “if it ain’t broke, don’t break it”.

We questioned a few times why when offensive line guru Bill Callahan went to Tennessee to coach with his son, the front office simply didn’t hire his assistant, Scott Peters, to succeed him. This would have been perfect sense, continuing the blocking scheme Callahan brought to Cleveland.

In an interview after the season ending loss to Baltimore, after hearing the news that Andy Dickerson was fired as the O-line coach, Joel Bitonio and Jack Conklin wondered out loud why the Browns made the change in scheme. They said they would like to go back to that.

It’s something else we always say. The players know when the coaches or the front office does something dumb. And nothing erodes the relationship between a coach and the players like doing something that doesn’t work and keep sticking with it.

And all these moves were made to justify the biggest mistake the Browns made in the last 10 years (perhaps in franchise history), the trade for Deshaun Watson. And compounding a mistake is always worse than just moving on from it.

Remember, Watson ruled out the Browns before the deal was made and only agreed to come to Cleveland when they fully guaranteed the contract. That should have sent a message that he really didn’t want to be here. And let’s face it, he still doesn’t want to be here.

It’s akin to being unemployed and taking the first job offer you get even though you know it’s not a good fit for you. Watson felt he could make it work, but his heart really wasn’t in it.

And the organization did not show Watson any tough love. Instead of telling him to conform to Kevin Stefanski’s offense, which has been proven, they instead decided to breakdown what was working, and try to make it more “Watson friendly”.

We guess the best news out of this is the organization decided to try to reverse the course after one season, a 3-14 disaster true, but they didn’t stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything was okay.

They hired a new offensive line coach, Mike Bloomgren, who lost his job as head coach at Rice University. Who did Bloomgren coach with earlier in his career with the Jets? That’s right, Bill Callahan.

The candidates for offensive coordinator also seem to have Stefanski’s offense, which means running the football in mind. It will be interesting to see who gets the gig, but it won’t be a pass first coach like Ken Dorsey.

As for Watson, his re-tear of the Achilles’ tendon virtually assures what was always thought to be true. His career in Cleveland is over.

The worst thing about it? The loss of draft picks and wasting three years of the careers of so many players.

The NBA MVP “Ladder” And Should Mitchell Be On It

One of the dumber things we see in sports is the “MVP Ladder” listed weekly by one of the NBA’s sponsors. It starts in the second week of the season, for goodness sakes. Why not wait until say, the All-Star break to start talking about the award.

We feel like in the NBA the media tries to give the award early and then spend the rest of the season justifying it. And usually, it’s because it is a specific player’s “turn”. For example, Jayson Tatum’s name always comes up early in seasons, but by the end of the year, others have passed him up.

What’s worse is other sports have started the same nonsense. But we digress.

We bring it up because the Cavaliers’ Donovan Mitchell has started to come up in conversations about the league MVP. Charles Barkley even said Mitchell should be discussed for the honor.

Mitchell is having an incredible year. In scoring, he is even with last year’s career high of 28.3 points per game, but it’s the other numbers that are more impressive.

He’s dishing out assists at a career high pace, with 6.3 per contest, beating his previous best by one assist. His turnovers are consistent with the rest of his career.

His rebounding has also increased over his career best, as he is grabbing 5.4 boards per night. And his shooting percentage has increased since arriving in Cleveland, as he shot 44.1% with Utah, and in his two years here, that is up to 48.4% last year and 47.5% this season.

Most importantly, when Darius Garland was injured, and J.B. Bickerstaff essentially put the ball in Mitchell’s hands, the Cavs have won 22 of 27 games, roaring to the 2nd seed in the Eastern Conference standings.

He has boosted his numbers since the day Garland went out to 29 points and 7.3 assists per contest. And it is not like he has been on the floor too much. After the first two games in this stretch, he’s played over 40 minutes just once, partially because of all the blowouts the team has played.

There have been games were he flat out carried the wine and gold. He had 45 points and 12 rebounds in the Paris game against the Nets. We woke the team out of a malaise against Detroit on January 31st, scoring 45 with 8 assists and 6 rebounds.

He’s likely also headed for his second all-NBA appearance in two years with Cleveland, which would make him only the third Cavalier to receive that honor more than once. The other two are LeBron James, who was named ten times (8 first team, 2 second team) and Mark Price, who received the honors four times (1 first team, 3 third team)

Mitchell made the second team last season.

He finished sixth in the MVP voting last season after leading the Cavs to a 50 win season, and they are on pace to surpass that mark in 2023-24.

Mitchell isn’t likely to win the award. Since the turn of the century, the only guards under 6’5″ to win it are Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Steph Curry, and Russell Westbrook. But if the Cavs can finish second in the East, perhaps he can get to the top five.

Either way, he’s having a heck of a season. People who know the game know it, even if the national love isn’t there.

Evaluation Of NBA Players Is Different Today.

With “The Last Dance” airing on ESPN the past two weeks, the age old who’s better, Michael Jordan or LeBron James, has reared up once again.

Our opinion is Jordan, but we don’t dismiss the James argument, as LeBron might be the most gifted athlete to ever play in the NBA. And although Jordan has won six titles, James has been to The Finals nine times.

Only three players have been to more: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

What we have thought about is the way evaluating great players has changed in the last 20 years of professional basketball.

Keep in mind, we’ve followed the NBA since the late 1960’s.

Too Much Emphasis On Rings. Ring counting has been en vogue since Jordan started winning them, but it doesn’t seem fair anymore.

First, the player movement is greater than ever particularly among the league’s best talents. Could Oscar Robertson have won more rings had he decided to sign with the Celtics in his prime?

Or let’s say Wilt Chamberlain went to the Royals when they had Oscar and Jerry Lucas. Could they have knocked off the Russell-led Celtics?

This isn’t to criticize today’s players it is just to point out free agency wasn’t available in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, and it is more prevalent that it was in the 80’s and 90’s.

The other part of the ring debate is the Draymond Green/Charles Barkley argument. Green is a very good player, and a key piece of Golden State’s three titles in four years.

However, there is no universe around where Green is a better player than Barkley. End of discussion.

Besides, how do the ring counters evaluation players like Robert Horry (7 rings) and Steve Kerr (5 rings)?

Style Over Substance. Today’s game seem to be more about the spectacular play rather than the winning play. There is room for both in the game, but since this is professional sports, shouldn’t the emphasis be on team success?

Early this year, we saw repeated replays of Memphis rookie Ja Morant trying to dunk on the Cavs’ Kevin Love.

First, we love Morant’s game, and think he will be a great player in the league for many, many years.

However, A). He missed the dunk, and B). The Grizzlies lost the game.

When was the last time a player on a team with one of the five worst records in the NBA was voted as a starter in the All Star Game? Prior to Trae Young being voted in this season, that is?

There used to be discussion that certain players probably should be in the game, but their teams weren’t any good. And maybe they did get a spot, but they didn’t start.

That’s changed now.

The Past Is Forgotten. Actually, baseball is the only sport where fans embrace the history of the game as much as they should.

So when the subject of the greatest players ever comes up, heck, sometimes even Larry Bird and Magic Johnson get omitted, so guys like Rick Barry, Bob Pettit, West, and Robertson have no chance.

Even ex-players do it. This past week, Kendrick Perkins said Kevin Durant is the greatest player ever to wear a Warriors’ uniform. The same Warriors who once employed Wilt Chamberlain and Barry.

The “It Happened Once” Theory. We find it amusing when fans cite things that happened once to predict the future.

A couple good examples relating to the Cavs were accumulating lottery draft picks worked for Oklahoma City, when they drafted Durant, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden as high picks. Tell me where else it worked?

Also, the Cavs can play Collin Sexton and Darius Garland together because it works for Portland with Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum. Again, tell me other teams having success playing two small guards.

What is sad is so many truly great players are forgotten in today’s day and age. Are the size and physical attributes of today’s players greater? Of course. But the way the game is officiated today is more advantageous to smaller players, and the truly great players would have adjusted, the same as today’s players would have adapted to the way things were.

It’s been a great game for many years, not just since 1995.

Rings Shouldn’t Define LeBron’s Greatness

Are we judging LeBron James too harshly?

No, we aren’t talking about the Kyrie Irving situation and all of the drama surrounding that. That kind of borders on ridiculousness, which is kind of common in today’s NBA.

We are talking about James’ standing among the all time greats of the game of basketball.

When did a players legacy depend on how many championship rings they won? Really, when did it start?

Was it when Larry Bird and Magic Johnson started talking about how many titles each won to show which was the better player?

Or was it Michael Jordan, who dominated the 1990’s and didn’t let anyone else win any.

In the sixties, the Celtics won virtually every season, but somehow that didn’t make guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, or Elgin Baylor inferior players.

Heck, West is the logo of the league, and his record in the NBA Finals was 1-8. His legacy within the game as one of the greatest players ever is without doubt.

Chamberlain was the dominant force in the game in that era, yet we would consider him the best player ever until Jordan ended his career. The Stilt won two championships.

In the seventies, we remember Rick Barry, a great scorer who may have been the best passer from the forward position before James, and people considered it a capper on his career when he broke through with the Warriors in 1975 and finally won a title.

However, in Jordan’s era, there are many truly great players that don’t get their due from many fans and media alike because they didn’t “get a ring”.

Charles Barkley was a great player. Nobody can tell us any different. The same is true with Karl Malone, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, and others. If you weren’t on Jordan’s team, you didn’t get one. The same as in Russell’s era.

On the other hand, Robert Horry was a part of seven title teams, Steve Kerr and Derek Fisher were on five championship squads. Does that make them great players? Of course not.

If James were to leave the Cavaliers after the 2017-18 campaign, it most likely will be because he sees a better opportunity to win more championships, which is how many will view his career in comparison with Jordan.

That’s what James means when he says he is chasing a ghost. The ghost of Michael Jordan.

But if we measure greatness in another way, let’s say by appearances in The Finals, then James has the edge, leading his team to eight conference titles, more than anyone who has played in the 21st century.

At this point, James’ legacy shouldn’t depend on how many titles he wins. If he plays into his late thirties, we could very well wind up as the NBA’s all time leading scorer.

He will also be in the top ten all time in assists. He would be the only player to rank in the top ten in both scoring and assists.

In addition, he will probably wind up in the top 40 all time in rebounding, and if the Cavs get back to The Finals this season, and they still are the favorites despite all the turnover, he would tie Magic, West, and Tommy Heinsohn with nine conference titles.

Only three players would have made more: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Sam Jones, and Bill Russell.

So, if he’s the all time leading scorer, top ten in assists, top 40 in rebounding, and no one played in more Finals, how can he not be considered the greatest player ever, or at the very least in the top two?

It would be judging harshly if he were criticized for only winning three titles.