While I agree that Mangini needs another year to be assessed, I don't understand calling for Daboll's termination. I don't see how you can suggest that Mangini is OK because we can't expect a winning season, and not assume the same of his staff. I'm not impressed with Daboll's work, nor am I impressed with Mangini, but you can't get rid of Daboll and say we should watch Mangini for another year.

Mangini is the head coach, bad play calling, ineffective offense, whatever the consequence, while the direct cause may have been Daboll, the ultimate responsibility falls on the Head Coach, Mangini. He has the power to redirect Daboll when things are going wrong, and that's his job.

Too often in the NFL an OC or DC is fired because the team isn't succeeding, while the head coach is spared. This couldn't be more backward. The only time an OC or DC should be fired and not the Head Coach, is if there is a problem between the two.

the real question is who is going to be the GM? whomever that person ends up being, is most certainly going to bring in "his" people. i,e, HC, OC no? I think yes, and certainly Mangini does deserve another yr to build something, but then again this is the NFL (not for long) I'm just tired of the start all over mode Ground Hog day syndrome. As much as am frustrated at times w/ Mangini I hope the new GM understands that I think these browns are starting to develope some confidence and chemistry w Mangini and of course Rob Ryan and I would like to see a good personnel guy to come in and bring in some more quality players and see what happens........I certainly didnt forsee Ben getting CLOBBERED ALL NIGHT on National TV.

i agree with josh cribbs: what coach worth his salt is going to want to come here when the previous coach was one and done?

All me to play devil’s advocate and disagree with your points:
1) No one is saying loose intentionally, but what you should be doing once you are eliminated from the playoffs is playing all your rookies and project players even if it means not putting your best team out there. No one is saying the team should lie down.
2) Yes, there is little difference between the first and subsequent picks. Problem is, there are six rounds and that “difference” begins to multiply across the entire draft.
3) Yes, there are no guarantees that any draft pick will work out, but players who are picked first have over time, a slightly better chance of becoming successful contributors then subsequent picks. Over an entire draft or over several drafts the percentages that more and more of your players will stick around and have meaningful careers increases. Everyone knows you cannot build your team via free agency so your picks working out is extremely important, and thus every little bit helps.
4) If you don’t want to pay the money, trade the pick. 1st picks are still tradable, the money just means that you can’t expect to get back 2 first found picks in return. Even if you do bite the bullet and end up paying, remember the values you are getting with the 1st pick in the rest of the rounds will make up for it.

@ Devil's Advocate

Looking out at the field on Thursday night, the Browns seemed to accomplish more of point 1 than was likely expected by you or I:
Jennings, Moore, Bernard, Schaefering, Maiava, Massaquoi, Roth, Robiskie and Harrison... all of these players, who need to be evaluated played. And what's more, they won. True, they didn't all play the entire game, or weren't effective when on the field, but the entire team doesn't need to be made up of players who need to be evaluated, mixing them in will provide the time necessary, especially if it's at this rate.