It's hard to paint Mike Holmgren as the villain in the Jim Brown story, sports columnist Bud Shaw writes.
When Mike Holmgren was introduced as the Browns' new president, Jim Brown was there to shake Holmgren's hand. The relationship between the two has now cooled, according to reports. But that doesn't mean that it's Holmgren's fault, says Bud Shaw.CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Ring of Honor is a natural in a football city that celebrates its distant, almost Paleozoic, past as if it happened yesterday.
Surprisingly, it took an outside eye, Mike Holmgren's, to recognize the void and propose the in-stadium tribute to the greatest players in Browns' history. Because of that alone, it's amazing if Holmgren is somehow painted the villain now because Jim Brown, the greatest of them all, might stay away from the Sept. 19 ceremony because of hurt feelings.
Casting Holmgren as the bad guy is the greatest reach since Hollywood sold Danny DeVito as Arnold Schwarzenegger's brother in "Twins."
When Holmgren earlier changed Brown's duties, title and compensation, no great outcry followed -- perhaps in part because no one other than Randy Lerner ever really understood Brown's role in the organization.
At times, the media sought him out for his opinion as if it really mattered to the success or operation of the franchise. Because he was Jim Brown. Because a half-century ago he carried the football as well as anyone who ever lived.
In most other organizations, Brown would've had a ceremonial role at best. Here, the owner's ear became his. Based on what? His years of franchise building?
It was rather because Lerner was never a football guy, was never around much and mostly had legitimate reason to wonder if he'd put the right people in place as head coach and GM. With Holmgren, he believes he finally got it right.
That mandates a lesser role for Brown, who suggested in a radio interview with a Syracuse station last week that he feels disrespected. He didn't specify the reason, whether it stems from a reduction in influence, pay or a reduction in contributions to his Amer-I-Can program.
I'm not surprised if Brown is having trouble swallowing the financial aspects. He has watched Holmgren add millions to the payroll in administrative salaries. If you're Brown, you might say, "And you're pinching pennies with me and Amer-I-Can?"
But Holmgren making changes in how the organization operates, in reducing the chorus of voices heard, is perfectly understandable. Even Brown's Hall of Fame career doesn't mandate a job for life, especially one promising influence.
Brown had some of that with Lerner. It's difficult to tell how much.
More importantly for Lerner, Brown served as a flak jacket against some of the slings and arrows of outraged fans. In other words, some people might've thought that if Jim Brown were in the loop, how bad could it be?
The answer: very bad.
Holmgren is trying to improve the quality and efficiency of an inept franchise. He'll be judged on his own successes or failures in that regard.
He'll be judged in the shorter term on his decision to keep Eric Mangini or, barring that, on his next move. On Montario Hardesty and Colt McCoy. Good picks, or more of the draft-day waste that has doomed the Browns for the past decade?
He'll be judged on whether Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace are a bridge to the future or the same old bridge to nowhere.
Sept. 19? He thought enough of Browns' Hall of Famers to throw them a party and give them a place of permanence up there with the fans.
The Ring of Honor is his idea, not his issue.