Memo to coach Eric Mangini, the Browns and their fans:
This isn't New England.
It's Cleveland, and the Browns are 1-and-7.
For whatever reason, folks in the NFL seem to have patented the notion that if things don't go well in one season, it's OK to go back years in your career and say things went well then.
This somehow justifies what is happening in the present season.
This practice has taken place with the Browns almost annually since 1999.
Only former coach Romeo Crennel was straightforward enough to say what happened back then didn't matter if you don't win now.
He was right.
What happened two, five or seven years ago is irrelevant.
Recently, though, interviews have come out with Mangini comparing the situation with the Browns now with the situation with the Patriots when Bill Belichick took over the team in 2000.
Mangini opened up expansively to CBSSports.com and the Boston Globe while also addressing the situation locally when asked Monday.
His point: People were ripping Belichick and the Patriots in 2000, and we turned it around there so we can turn it around here.
Ahem.
There are a few differences.
The first is the people making the picks with the Browns are Eric Mangini and TBD. With the Patriots, they were Belichick and Scott Pioli.
At that point in the turnaround, Mangini was a defensive backs coach, which last I checked is not high on the personnel totem pole.
As for the future with the Browns and picking players, anything can happen, but Mangini's first-year track record does not inspire confidence.
If we must talk about the Patriots, it also seems fair to point out the one season that Mangini was defensive coordinator there. That position allows an assistant coach to have a large effect.
In that season, 2005, the Patriots' NFL rankings in every defensive category were worse than they were in 2004.
In 2006, when Mangini went to the New York Jets, the Patriots' rankings improved in every defensive category.
But even that fudges the main issue. Crennel, after all, wanted to hire Mangini as his defensive coordinator, too.
The Patriots' turnaround happened because of one main reason: They lucked into Tom Brady in the sixth round of the 2000 draft.
If the Patriots don't stumble into a hall of fame quarterback in that late round, where are Belichick and his staff in the Pantheon of NFL geniuses?
For those who say the Patriots were smart to draft Tom Brady, I say: ''Please.''
The Patriots passed on Brady six times.
For those who say the Patriots expected this from Brady, I say, again: ''Please.'' A hall of fame quarterback in round six? You hope for it, but you don't expect it. Pure good fortune. Like Johnny Unitas trekking to the Baltimore Colts after the Pittsburgh Steelers cut him.
Brady Quinn came in with more fanfare and adulation than Tom Brady. Luck is often better than good scouting.
Too, Brady didn't play at all as a rookie, and he might not have played a lot in his second season had Drew Bledsoe not been injured.
He did, and that led to the first of three Super Bowls.
Where would the Patriots be without Brady? Last season provides a clue. Brady was hurt, Matt Cassell played, the Patriots were pretty good — but pretty good did not translate into a playoff berth.
Put the players on a chess board, and Brady is the king. Belichick and Pioli deserve credit for maneuvering the pieces around the king.
Without Brady, are they even in the playoffs all those seasons?
The Browns lack a king, but the way the Browns' remaining pieces are being used is not adding up to wins.
In reality, the team is awful. Dare we dredge up all the 30-something stats the Browns have at this point of the season?
Mangini was right about one thing — the Patriots' staff in 2000 was criticized just like the Browns are being criticized now. But what do you do when the team is lousy? Talk about how great the brown pants look?
Giving interviews to national outlets is fine, though it's oddly curious to do it at this point while the local media never got this kind of access or information or insight. Is Andre Agassi the team's media consultant?
This could be a legitimate effort to improve the team's image, but it also smacks of a frontal effort to save a job.
Here's a suggestion.
Forget the Patriots. Ban it from the lexicon. Forever.
Concentrate on winning the next game. Then maybe the next one after that. And the next one.
Because nothing will save a job faster than wins.
They just need to actually happen this week. And next week. And the next week after that?
