I think so.  A smart man might be flexible and confident enough to retain someone like Jauron instead of changing things for the sake of change.  Having stability and continuity on at least one side of the field might go a long way towards helping the Browns get past the .500 mark.

I think it's a mistake to change defensive coordinators. So wait, let's get this straight, we are going to fire a DC who got this team's defense to finish ranked 10th (yards per game) in the league despite an awful offense that left the D on the field too long, and we are swapping that for a guy who had his defense finish 24th?  The Browns finished strong defensively despite being overexposed having to suffer with our offense.  The Browns defense ranked 4th in the league for how long they had to spend on the field. TOP.

I understand that new HCs want their guys, but sometimes stubbornly doing that is more like taking 3 steps backwards in order to take 1 step forwards.  It'd be nice if Jauron gets an interview, and Chud simply announces that he'd like to retain Jauron, simply because there are no better candidates available for that job than Jauron himself.

Tree wrote: I think so.  A smart man might be flexible and confident enough to retain someone like Jauron instead of changing things for the sake of change.  Having stability and continuity on at least one side of the field might go a long way towards helping the Browns get past the .500 mark.

I think it's a mistake to change defensive coordinators. So wait, let's get this straight, we are going to fire a DC who got this team's defense to finish ranked 10th in the league despite an awful offense that left the D on the field too long, and we are swapping that for a guy who had his defense finish 24th?

I understand that new HCs want their guys, but sometimes stubbornly doing that is more like taking 3 steps backwards in order to take 1 step forwards.  It'd be nice if Jauron gets an interview, and Chud simply announces that he'd like to retain Jauron, simply because there are no better candidates available for that job than Jauron himself.

This move has nothing to do with scheme and everything to do with philosophy.

Chud wants to attack the offense and put pressure on the QB. Jauron is a bend but don't break DC. DJ has done a good job, but not great.

As for the offense leaving the D on the field too long, it's not the offenses fault the defense can't get off the field. Seems there isn't a 3rd and long enough that the defense can't give up a first down. It's almost as if they were trying to wear out the oppossing offense by making them run 9-10-11 play drives each time they took the field.

Who knows, maybe it worked. As teams ran up yardage totals but didn't score a lot of TD's. They must have been too tired to score from all the plays they ran.

Anyway if Chud is going to fail, he's going to do it with his guys, doing it his own way. I don't blame him one bit.

I had thought about that.  And I can understand making a change based on philosophy in part, but I would counter by saying two things.

1.) Perhaps we were forced more into a bend but don't break approach because of the ineptitude of our offense.

2.) Does changing philosophies necessarily mean changing schemes when we were primarily built thus far to run as a 4-3?

Tree wrote: I had thought about that.  And I can understand making a change based on philosophy in part, but I would counter by saying two things.

1.) Perhaps we were forced more into a bend but don't break approach because of the ineptitude of our offense.

2.) Does changing philosophies necessarily mean changing schemes when we were primarily built thus far to run as a 4-3?

Tree, I can understand Chud wanting to change the mentality of our defense. We have run a passive D since Romeo. It gives us great statistics. We don't have wins. The ravens had a year in which they won a lot of game with little or no offense. Their defense, an attacking defense, was the reason for the wins

4-3  or 3-4...meh.... Chud said he will take best advantage of the personnel. This year, the Pats went from primarily a 3-4 to a 4-3, but you couldn't tell which they were in as they interchanged frequently in the same game. Just casually observing on TV, many times most teams look to be in a 5 man front. Someone said the difference between a 3 and 4 or 5 man front was how many hands on the ground. If that is so, how can anyone watching on TV be able to tell if they are watching a 3 man front?  Fully expect a gradual shift. Doubt we will be easily recognized as a 3-4 defense.

We should have kept Jaraun. But I prefer Radio Raheem keeping the 4 - 3 at least. I like Sheard as one Tampa 2 style up field DE and the 2 tackles as tampa 2 anchors if that's the way Morris goes. Bernard may even be a factor one day. LOL.

NyQuil stays relevant and our kid LB's project better to 4 - 3 LB's.

If we had to make a change to go to a "HopeChangeAttack-style" D , this is better than a 3 - 4 or hybred.

I also feel the hand of Darth Banner..... bwahahahaha.

A smart man might be flexible and confident enough to retain someone like Jauron

Tree I agree.  The best part of our defense is our run stopping with Taylor and Rubin but they only played half of our games together.  So statistics are not an accurate measure of their ability.  I think we must have them together to make progress and we must also keep Sheard for his pass rush along with Parker and Rucker. Hughes and Winn were giving us depth so our Dline was making progress and Juron made this happen.  The Dline progress was the only defensive progress I saw.

Will the next D coach throw out our best parts and try to run a 3-4?  This has been our fate...killed by rebuilding while other benefit from our castoffs.

How about Ray Horton?  He may become available and Haslam loved him in the interview.  The only downside is he is a HC candidate and could leave soon.