Post-Game Thread: Victory at Last! Yay?
by Chris Pokorny on Oct 11, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
in General News
Email
Print
The Cleveland Browns are no longer winless. If we needed some form of momentum heading into Pittsburgh next week, I suppose a win is uplifting. And, although it wasn't the reason we won, the Browns are 1-0 in the post-Braylon Edwards era.
Bottom line, a win is a win. Also bottom line, this was the type of game in which you could make a highlight reel solely on how much of a joke both teams were at points. QB Derek Anderson suffered from some drops, but on the game he was just 2-of-17 for 23 yards and an interception. And we won.
Trent Edwards proved my point prior to the game that he is one of the league's worst starting quarterbacks. Nonetheless, props to our defense for holding their own throughout the game. Most of all, our special teams unit deserves a ton of credit for an amazing effort that didn't need the help of Joshua Cribbs. Having two punts downed at the one, one punt downed at the four, and then a fumble recovery on a punt to set up the game-winning field goal for the Browns makes Dave Zastudil the game's MVP without question.
By the way: I chose the picture above for a reason. I was literally laughing my arse off after seeing Eric Mangini, Rob Ryan, and Derek Anderson celebrate as if they'd won the Super Bowl following the game.
695 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wouldnt be able to celebrate if I was Anderson. I would just be embaressed.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 4:36 PM EDT reply actions
Through 2 1/2 games:
Derek Anderson: 37 for 84 (44%) 384 yards, 4.57 YPA, 1 TD 5 INT, 37.0 QB Rating
Brady Quinn: 45 for 74 (60%) 400 yards, 5.41 YPA, 1 TD 3 INT, 62.9 QB Rating
Brady had to play the Vikings (5-0), Broncos (5-0) and Ravens (3-2). Anderson got dates the second half of the Ravens, Cincinnati(4-1) and Buffalo(1-4). And Anderson’s the answer?
When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie? Quinn being pulled after 2 1/2 games was a desperation call which didn’t pan out.
Why is Anderson being allowed to get away with the garbage we would never accept from Quinn?
When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie?
What would you like this to look like? Should Savage and Crennel apologize from their living rooms? Should DA say sorry he had a career year? Should Quinn’s agent apologize for the holdout?
Get over that. And stop thinking of Quinn as some golden boy first round pick. If it was a mistake, it was made by people that have NOTHING to do with the Browns anymore. Start thinking of him as an inexperienced and ineffective QB. He is one of two QBs on this team. He just barely edged out DA to start the season. He was incredibly ineffective and was benched. DA hasn’t played great, but put together a decent game last week.
I wouldn’t be shocked or angry if either QB got the start next week, but let’s stop fooling ourselves that one of them deserves anything.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Where do people get this notion that he barely beat out DA in the preseason. It wasn’t even close, Quinn scored on like 60% of his possessions. I think DA scored on two possessions all preseason.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
They split first team snaps until the last minute. If you really think Mangini was trying to hide something or being clever, fine. I just think he had them evaluated very closely through camp and preseason. Maybe it was the slight advantage Quinn had in the preseason games (neither had all that many possessions) that gave him the edge, but that isn’t everything they were evaluated on.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The reps mean very little, as Mangini was going to “let the process” happen no matter what. If after two games one QB had a 100 rating and another had a 40, they would have split the reps the third still. The bottom line is that when comparing the equal reps, it wasn’t even close.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
But your missing the point that the preseason games were only a part of the evaluation. If there was such separation, there is absolutely no way Quinn loses the job in 2.5 games.
And there wasn’t nearly as much separation as you are suggesting in the games.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
i know we’re agreeing to disagree, but to say that the qb derby was anything but tight is mis-remembering (to quote the great roger clemens), or misrepresenting the facts.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
And Anderson’s the answer?
No.
When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie?
You do realize that we have an entirely new coaching staff than the one we at time that we drafted Quinn, right? Also, did you ever stop to think that perhaps Quinn just isn’t that good of a pro QB?
Of course, everyone has stopped to think about that. Of course, it’s a mere possibility, not an empirical conclusion.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
It’s more likely than the idea that it is the fault of an organization’s coaching staff which wasn’t even present to do what they’re being blamed for.
brady quinn was an amazing college qb, he will never be a good pro qb, he just doesn’t have the tools. yes, his 5.5 games are not a huge sample size, but none of them have shown me any reason to believe he’s any good. at least DA plays like a pro-bowler every once in a while
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions
If by “tools” you mean “arm” I completely disagree.
If you don’t mean “arm”, I don’t know how you can say “never”.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i mean things like decision making and leadership. This team hadn’t quit on eric mangini they quit on brady quinn. also, even if he had an arm (he doesn’t) it wouldn’t make a difference, he refuses to use it.
and before you say he can learn to make better decisions, what about DA? if he had better decision making skills wouldn’t he be a much better qb than quinn anyway?
to be perfectly clear, anderson is not a great qb by any stretch, but he has enough natural ability to win games.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Blah blah blah. Quinn’s arm strength is above average, and 5 games spread out intermittently over three years and 3 different coordinators means nothing.
Go Browns, I hope DA is someday even better than he was in 07 (definitely possible, he’s only 26), but your opinions on Quinn are either pure conjecture or empirically wrong.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
5 games over three years is certainly not dispositive, but i think we can say with confidence that there is legitimate concern about brady, given the fact that he clearly regressed over that 5 game span.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
i agree completely. doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be nervous about quinn.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I am 100% nervous, which is exactly why I would love to see if he is the answer or not—or at least see more of him to begin to answer that question.
I am glad DA led us to a win, despite a ton of drops and some terrible throws, but I just want the answer at QB. Not an answer, the answer.
I just want the answer at QB. Not an answer, the answer.
This should be the motto for next years draft.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
You want Allen Iverson? Didn’t he play quarterback in high school?
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 13, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Practice, man? I mean, we talkin’ about practice. Not the game, practice. I mean, practice.
by drjeo on Oct 13, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree completely. Words fail to express how much I hate the seemingly perpetual uncertainty….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 13, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
The team didn’t quit on Brady Quinn — that’s a ridiculous statement.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
DA and Brady can both learn to be better QBs, which is exactly why you can’t say either of them could “never” be a good pro.
As I said below, Quinn’s lack of confidence and lack of ability to move the ball are legit concerns. DA’s lack of ability to move the ball is a legit concern, too. The whole offense (except for 3 of our OL) is bad right now.
But the fact that you said BQ could “never” develop into a pro—not even a pro bowler—is hyperbole, poor analysis, and is not appreciated here.
You have provided no reason for supporting DA besides his past performances. Quinn has played well at ND and in 2007 and 2008. He’s also played poorly this year. DA has played well in 2007 and poorly in late 2007 and 2008. I don’t see that as a reason to prefer one over the other.
I’m willing to accept why some people might are not yet ready to rule out the possibility of Quinn being a good pro QB. But how can one say: “When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie?” When Mangini and company (those in the organization who develop players now) were not even their to botch when Quinn was a rookie.
Not to mention, Romeo and company were coaching a pro-bowl effort Derek Anderson, any coach trying to win would have started Anderson.
I just can’t see how someone could blame any coaching staff for the lack of development from Quinn, especially Mangini.
So what you are saying is, the Browns must accept responsibility for Brady Quinn´s arrested development, his stunted growth as an NFL quarterback? If so, what is the consequence? Retiring him as never happened, or keeping him because we feel so sorry for him?
Itssssss the precioussssss, no one elsssssezzzz gets him workingzzzzz.
The result is we have a Brady Quinn as one of three quarterbacks on the roster.
I don’t know what the heck you are talking about, but I am laughing at the use of the phrase “arrested development”.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I am fully aware of the unavoidable circumstances that led to both Quinn and Anderson’s playing time heading into 2009. I just think that 10 quarters is not enough time to warrant a change after either guy “won” the competition. That winner should have been given 8 games minimum, especially in a developmental year. The only justification for pulling Quinn at that point was a “win now” mentality. The trade of Braylon proves that’s not our mentality. Thus, give one guy 8 games, no matter what (like DA got last year, despite horrific play), and if he has developed and is performing, let him continue to do that. If he’s stunk up the joint, give the other guy 8 games. This way, no matter what you finally, once and for all, know what you have and can plan accordingly this off season. We cannot accomplish this now.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Agreed, and pretty much what I’ve said here more than once.
As for justification, I can see a certain desperation to get something going, to win a game, to placate the fanbase a bit and take the edge off the ‘Kill Mangini!’ movement that has been growing up. Unfortunately, although that’s been accomplished, the team’s situation at QB is now seriously stunted.
The short term benefit is there from putting in DA, but so is the long term damage. This whole mess doesn’t seem to fit in with the ‘reduce drama, add depth, and keep rebuilding’ mold of most of Mangini’s moves….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions
this isn’t baseball. if quinn had shown flashes of being a good qb I would agree with you, but players that look that awful don’t develop
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Categorical statements are dangerous things. It just doesn’t seem to me that player development at any position is that simple.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 13, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
It was on the bold side to make the move after 10 quarters. But 8 games was too long last year. Certainly there is a happy medium.
That said, I still think we see Quinn start more games as a Brown- with or without any injuries.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Why???
Because they almost beat Cinci and beat the bills…but I’ve not given up on Quinn, but I think he needed to slow down and regroup. He was really jittery out there and I think the lay off will do him good. I don’t think Anderson is the answer long term, but Quinn will get another chance in the near future, and that’s when he’ll prove himself.
DA VS QUINN
each qb has had 10 quarters.
here are the stats.
DA: 39/84 46% 378 yards 2 TD (includes rushing) 5 int. Has scored 29 points.
Quinn: 45/74 60.8% 400 yards 1 TD 3 int. Has scored 26 points.
DA should have been benched today. he went 1/8 in the 1st half with 16 yards. quinn was pulled going 6/8 with i don’t remember how many yards. i know the drops did have an effect on DA’s stats today, but overall… they aren’t that much different from quinn’s.
The drops apparently (I can’t watch the game live) had a big impact on the first half- 4 or 5 clear drops.
he did try another 10 or so in the second half though… what happened there?
how about for DAs 10 quarters we use the first half of next game instead of that joke of a second half he played where he was just chucking prayers trying to get us back in the game.
On another note, our running game has been notably improved under DA. This is probably due to the fact that defenses have to take him seriously so they can’t stack the box.
most importantly however: quinn 0-3 anderson 1-1
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Or the fact that we’ve played Cinci and Buffalo, not Minnesota, Denver and Baltimore?
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
funny that you included denver as one of the good teams but were quick to dismiss cinci, even though they are both teams having good seasons after sucking last year
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
then what was the point of your post? why bother pointing out who they played if you weren’t saying one group was better than the other?
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions
yes, you can add in the drops and the ravens game to make DA’s stats seem better. (i still think that 3 ints in 1 half is ridiculous, even if they’re down by 50). i don’t favor either of them, but if you look at the stats as a whole, there is not that much difference in their individual performance.
i agree with notthatnoise, though, on the fact that the running game has improved under DA.
if DA plays like this vs. pitt, they’ll be looking at a 28+ point differential.
the QB for next year is not on this roster. trade one of them, get the highest draft pick you can for him, and draft a qb in the early rounds. both DA and quinn are backups in the nfl.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Much more than I mourn our hopes for a decent win-loss record this year, I mourn our hopes that this year would provide some definitive answers to our quarterback question.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
How would sacks also factor into this? Is it that Quinn had less protection, or just that he held onto the ball too long?
pass rush was NOT an issue against the ravens. the defenses may have been better, but quinn held the ball way too long.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions
how in the world could BQ have done worst? Some of those dropped passes maybe would have been caught since BQ doesn’t have a laser arm like DA
by The Licensed Pessimist on Oct 11, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
How in the world can you say that. You just hate Quinn, jeez, don’t show your hand at all, goodness.
So Quinn would of gone 1 of 17? please.
Quinnn would have gone 5-25 for 3 less yards
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know how you can say this. 2/17 is almost impossible to top in terms of sucktitude.
This win was because of ST, running the ball and defense. Tressel would have busted a chub watching this one.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
i think it can be argued we don’t run the ball nearly as well with quinn, and yes the running game does have to do with the qb
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions
i think it can be argued we don’t run the ball nearly as well with quinn
How? It’s not like DA was making the defense work.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree, this makes no sense. Harrison was dinged up and so was Davis, but that was Quinns fault to I guess.
Funny Browns win a God awful game that the offense was basically Lewis, special Teams and the D, lost in when Anderson on 5 straight possessions could not get the team even in field goal range, has become the “leader” the man on this team.
Listen I am not saying Quinn is a Pro Bowl QB, but it is funny how he is getting blamed for the running game, the offense, he sucks, he would of thrown 3 picks today, and the Browns would of lost the game today if Quinn was at QB. It is quite comical how he has become the whipping boy on a bad team.
However, there is no way that after being uncompetitive in 3 games with Quinn, that we would switch back to him after being competitive in both games with Anderson.
True. The real question is what happens when we play some real teams and DA represents like he did today.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I certainly understand the logic of this, but the truth is that the Browns were competitive in this game despite Anderson.
BTW, I say that because I still think that wind or no wind, he was putting too much on his short passes.
I agree that this is close to “HE’S A WINNER!” but I think Dorn’s point is that we won’t go back to Quinn, not about what we should do.
The receivers dropped a TON of balls against Buffalo. That one to Royal was a TD.
I didn’t get to see the game in which we actually scored points this season, but I do know Anderson was the QB for that game. The other game that DA started, we won. I don’t think Mangini and co will go away from him—especially since they’ve already flip-flopped once.
The whole offense needs to get better. Except Joe Thomas.
I just saw today that Royal is playing with a broken ring finger on his right hand, which might have something to do with that bad drop (combined with the fact that he’s not a very good receiver). This begs the question of why he’s being thrown to so much.
Royal should just stop getting open then, dammit!
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 13, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Leader
It might just be me, but the team seems to stay behind Anderson even when he plays poorly.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
The quarterback most certainly does affect the running game. if the defense doesn’t have to worry about the qb throwing further than 8 yards, they can stack the box every single play. defenses have to worry about DA stretching the field, and thus can only put 7 in the box (most of the time). so unless you think that extra person doesn’t matter, the qb plays a big part in the running game.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Guess what? If a QB is 2 for 17,the defense isn’t worried about him throwing the ball no matter how far he can throw the ball. If you think I am wrong, look at Oakland.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions
And he can eat 359 hot dogs in one sitting!
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions
yes they are, it only takes one bomb to score, so the defense always has to be honest. watch the bills game, until the browns were trying to run clock, they had seven guys in the box.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
The defense doesn’t have to be honest if they don’t believe your passing game is a threat.
You could have Peyton Manning at QB but if you had Dorn and myself at WR, BQIB at TE in a mooncamping designed offense, no defense would care.
On Sunday, our passing game was not a threat.
Additionally, a defense can stack the box, and still play a relatively safe zone coverage. A cover-3 is pretty easy to run with 8 in the box. Teams with really good/fast safeties can run a cover-2/cover-4 with 8 in the box; I’ve seen Polamalu threaten blitz in the A gap pre-snap and make it back to cover the WR’s “go” route.
Teams like the Ravens or Eagles can put 8 in the box, and defend the pass by blitzing the hell out of you.
A mooncamping offense wouldnt include Manning, he isnt a fullback.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
You dont think I would be a good TE? Sure I might not be a good blocker at 135 pounds, but I think I might be taller than Dorn and Rufio.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it would be fun to assign positions to the regualar posters on DBN.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I could play safety but I have no top speed. My acceleration isnt bad, but I dont have anything after that.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Guard.
6’-4" 330.
I played RT in highschool. If anyone hit me now, I’d break.
by golanbatrac on Oct 12, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I am 6’ 375.
So in other words, tailback.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe TE? 6’1 260. Pretty slow, but decent hands.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
mooncamping would say we’re all fullbacks.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
6’1 135 for me. Slot receiver or third down back.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe I could be QB and someone would make the name ‘BradyQuinnisBeastisBeast’
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 13, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
And remember that Quinn played much tougher Defenses
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Stop it. Just stop. You can’t judge a QB solely by wins and losses — that’s just ignorance.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions
True. However, as someone who was once a Quinn supporter, he was really that bad in the first 2.5 games. Even after Anderson’s performance today, I feel more comfortable with him.
Sure, that conclusion is totally valid. But pointing to W-L is just about the stupidest way to get there.
Right. I’m not saying Quinn should be starting, just that quoting their W-L record as a starter is completely illogical.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
9 drops today alone. 9. that is beyond futility from the receiving corps.
and beyond the stats, you can’t honestly tell me—even considering that quinn played against better defenses—that these two quarterbacks look even remotely similar. quinn moved the offense zero, had no accuracy, looked nervous, and got worse the more he played (SSS, granted).
at least anderson shows some spark, delivers the ball quickly, often down the field, and has the potential to move the offense (e.g. the royal drop). they seriously look like they’re playing different games.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
The SSS is everything. It completely eliminates any negative evaluation. I’m sorry, it just does.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
i realize the import of SSS, but it takes on less significance when speaking relatively. anderson and quinn have had essentially the exact same amount of playing time thus far…you tell me who has looked the better qb?
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Anderson has looked better at times, though certainly not yesterday. Also, they have played an unequal schedule. There is no arguing that Quinn played against tougher defenses than Anderson has so far. Of course, they both played against Baltimore, with very poor results. So, what is the actual basis for comparison? The team has played better recently, so maybe that’s Anderson, although I don’t really see the correlation.
to both you and dr. j…i’m like flabbergasted that you both say it’s borderline. to me, watching anderson play quarterback is like fine art compared to the play that quinn put forth in his 2.5 games. you don’t feel like there’s a substantial difference?
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel Quinn had no confidence in himself, he was “skiddish” and safe. The offense was so dysfunctional, I was not in the least surprised to see him get benched.
DA has played 10 quarters since. While the offense seemed a little more competent with him under center, I can’t find any reason to give DA the credit for it. 3 INTs in a half is an embarrassment, I don’t care the circumstances. Those were 3 really bad, terrible detrimental plays. He still runs himself into sacks, holds the ball too long has no touch on anything less than 10 yards, and doesn’t handle adversity well. Maybe there were parts of the passing game that wasn’t Anderson’s fault, but to say that he looked good- in any sense-better than anything at all- is just using too much bias, in my mind. He was bad. The only exception is the pass that Royal dropped down the seam. I don’t think Quinn makes that throw. Otherwise, Anderson was bad. Really bad.
A lot has been made of the drops. Yes, at least 3 were inexcusable. I mean maybe he should have been 6-17 or 7-17. But most of those were for less than 10 yards. His YPA was terrible, and would have been terrible.
Turd sandwich. Giant douche. We have two QBs playing really poorly. Regardless of what has happened in the past (Anderson’s 2007) or either of their potential for the future, they are both really bad right now.
i’m not saying either is good, by any stretch. but to me, anderson looks to be the more competent pro qb right now, and it’s not close.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Me too, and I was a big Quinn backer coming in to the season.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
we’ve forgotten preseason and last year already? really.
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess that is the world we live in. The Browns are maybe a 4 win team, give Quinn 10 quarters of football, Tell him he sucks, he is awful, and replaced by Dan Montana who has thrown 5 picks in 10 quarters, has a passer rating of 15.5, wonderful 2 for freaking 17 ( yes with drops, which happens in every freaking NFL game) and he deserves to be the QB for ever.
Hey I am not saying Quinn is the answer, however if you think after 10 quarters of football and can say he got a fair shake well then I guess we all should be fired from our jobs.
“Hey I am not saying Quinn is the answer, however if you think after 10 quarters of football and can say he got a fair shake well then I guess we all should be fired from our jobs.”
DA has gotten way more opportunities than quinn. mangini pulled out quinn when he was 6/8 and 30something yards. DA was 1/8 with 16 yards against a much much worse defense. if that would've been quinn out there, he would've been benched.
To correct you, it was a much, much, MUCH worse Defense.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
to people saying ten quarters isn’t enough, as someone who has played a lot of football in his life, if you can’t show ANYTHING positive in 2.5 games, not to mention the preseason or practices, you probably can’t play. this isn’t baseball.
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, even as someone who is by no means bummed that they decided to go away from quinn, to say you get a good look at a player in 2.5 games is ridiculous.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
it wasn’t just 2.5 games, it was college, every preseason game he’s played, and every practice this year, plus 2-3 games last year (though I hesitate to count those). He NEVER showed anything as a pro. It would be different if he had shown any flashes of being a productive qb, but he hasn’t.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Just to add . . . you are completely wrong.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Bradford isn’t worth the 1st rounder if Suh, Eric Berry, or Taylor Mays are still available IMO. I really don’t like trading down either if either of those three are available.
i think they may draft a qb in the 2nd round. colt mccoy will most likely not fall to the early 2nd round but you never know.
Colt McCoy has a good chance of falling to the 2nd actually. If you really like Zac Robinson we have 2 6th rounders.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
The ever-narrowing infighting here is sad but inevitable. Neither BQ or DA will ever look great with this offense. But obsessing over BQ and complaining about DA after a win is just redolent of a disfunctional family.
No diamonds in the rough. It’s rough through and through. Please call off the conspiracy dogs. We’ll probably need both QBs next week anyway
but i’ve also seen predictions of being taken in the 4th or 5th. so i guess it’s up in the air. osu has texas, texas tech, and oklahoma coming up, so we’ll see how he handles those. looking at his stats, he seems like a gunslinger with good accuracy, but also very mobile. he does throw to dez bryant, but we’ll see how he is without him. i’ll admit, i haven’t watched him a ton other than nationally televised games.
When I have watched him, his accuracy seems off
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
hmmm. well maybe the ones i watched he was just having a good game. or i wasnt paying enough attention.
Its just my opinion, but he can throw a few good passes but then will throw in a bad one way too often.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Plays against weak competition with a spread offense. I need to see some more of his film though.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I almost agree with emily, the only thing I’d say is that they could only play 2nd string on teams like Oakland, Buffalo, or Detroit, most other places they would end up just like Charlie Frye, career third stringers.
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 4:57 PM EDT reply actions
The Browns still have 2 back up quarterbacks, at best, and maybe only third string on a good team. Mangini can’t change this,this year. It will need off season signings and/or draft choices.
Quinn couldn’t win the tough games at Notre Damn and Anderson had one season where he made the ProBowl, but only because of injuries to the quarterbacks ahead of him.
Im so tired of people saying Quinn couldnt win in college. They know nothing
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
He lost quite a bit.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
Which is as relevant to his pro career as the current Dow Jones average.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Strange
I don’t remember saying it was relevant. I just pointed out he lost quite a bit. Honestly he hasn’t won in the NFL either. If Anderson is so bad, why does he keep getting picked over Quinn?
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
For the eleventy billionth time, winning and losing tells very little about the quality of the quarterback — especially winning and losing in college. That means absolutely nothing when evaluating ability to play in the NFL.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The guy above said quinn win tough games in college
Someone responded that he was tired of people saying Quinn couldn’t win in college. I stated he lost quite a bit. I never said it had any bearing on his pro career.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
So did Jay Cutler. Tom Brady couldn’t beat out Dew Henson. Peyton Manning couldn’t beat the Vols. Joe Flacco couldn’t beat out Tyler Palko. This all has so very much to do with the NFL.
Quick, does someone have Ken Dorsey’s phone number?
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, I said the same thing under you.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Jay Cutler and Big Ben didnt lead their teams to greatness either.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Quinn couldn’t win the tough games at Notre Damn
this is such a dumb thing to say, especially since it’s completely meaningless to his ability as an NFL qb.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I meant as a cumulative effort of suckage on both sides.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Quick observations:
The Good:
- Interior offensive line. Mack, Fraley, Steinbach. They were pretty solid despite a slow RB and lack of creativity in the play calling. They also gave DA some time to look downfield.
- The running game. Lewis played well. I really liked Harrison’s wide sweep and the little read option play to Cribbs.
- Pass rush. Still didn’t get to Edwards as much as I would like, but Wimbley is border line consistent and border line good.
- Secondary. They played ok. They didn’t get beat, didn’t make a lot of plays. But contained some decent weapons. Could be that Trent Edwards really sucks though.
- Run D. Held Jackson and Lynch to 99 yards on 30 carries.
- Special tems. Zastidul is awesome. The coverage was great. We have about 4 special teams aces on coverage and the best returner in the league. And after watching the Bengals botch another extrapoint attempt, I think we need to be thankful for Pointbriand and Zastidul as holder. Also, big cred to Cundiff for playing solidly (besides the last kickoff) in Dawson’s absence.
The bad:
- The passing game. The protection was fine. I don’t know how you much you want to blame DA (too many throws batted down at the line, a terrible INT, held the ball too long a couple times, missed a couple open guys), the playcalling (very simple, didn’t give many chances for the players to make plays), the roster (2 rookies, 1 guy that has 3 or 4 practices under his belt on the team, a guy that’s not quick enough to get open and a bad pass-catching TE), or the receivers – MoMass, Cribbs, Harrison, Royal all had at least one obvious drop that anyone should catch. However you divide the blame- that was a historically bad performance.
- Cribbs- His one run was awesome, but he had a bad game overall. Muffed a punt, didn’t make any plays in the return game, dropped a screen. You can only blame Daboll so much- Cribbs needs to make the most out of his opportunities.
- Those commenting on DBN and Browns fans not happy with the win. I mean really? Defense played a great game, Zastidul put on a clinic, and the running game was really good. AND WE WON!
- Playcalling/offensive scheme. Just a lack of creativity.
- QB rushes. I really like the 2-deep man-under base defense. I think our corners are good enough and LBs are quick enough- And it seems like we can get decent pressure with 4 guys. But the glaring weakness of this defense is the QB scramble up the middle. It gave the game to the Bengals last week and Edwards hurt us this week.
-
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
You are so correct
and we have been competitive two weeks in a row..
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
Those commenting on DBN and Browns fans not happy with the win. I mean really? Defense played a great game, Zastidul put on a clinic, and the running game was really good. AND WE WON!
Totally agree. We can crap on the offense all day long, but we should be pumped about this game. The defense and ST played a complete game that we haven’t seen from them in at least two years.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. If a team wins a 45-42 game with great offense and no defense the fans are all excited, but if a team wins 6-3 with no offense but a great defense then everyone complains that we sucked. Our offense sucked, but our defense and special teams were both outstanding. That’s 2/3 of the game.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Tell that to Buffalo right now. ST have cost them two games. Today and the opening Monday night game.
And Jim Tressel just MF’ed you for saying that.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we’ve had this discussion before, but you are very wrong… still.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
If you think special teams is equally relevant to winning in football as offense and defense, then you know very little about the sport. It’s like saying defense is as important as pitching and hitting in baseball.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
About 20% of the pure number of plays were on special teams today- under 1/3- in pure numbers. And if you think the first down runs were anywhere near as important as the field-position changing punts, not to mention the points being scored- well I’m not sure you have a grasp on what turns a game.
Every special teams play is huge and has a much higher probability of impacting the game than a random play on offense or defense.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Look around the league at the best special teams units, and look around at some of the worst. There’s practically an inverse proportion to W-L record vs. good special teams.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I had a long response typed out and it didn’t post.
My gist was that special teams can be overwhelmed by incredibly good or incredibly bad units in one of the other phases of the game. And the differentiation in special teams is admittedly a lot less in the NFL than it is at any other level. But the special teams are still responsible for huge amount of yardage and points. And being really good or really bad is a huge deal. The Titans and Jets are two examples of teams who have won/lost largely because of really good/bad special teams.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions
t special teams can be overwhelmed by incredibly good or incredibly bad units in one of the other phases of the game.
I thought that was exactly what kwoog was arguing?
Thats fine. If a team is very good on offense and very good on defense, their ST’s can suck and win.
But to write off ST’s as 10% of football is crazy.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess we are just arguing as to what the significance of special teams is. Sure, special teams can be overcome by the other units, but special teams can also do the overwhelming. I.e., the Browns winning today despite a very very bad offense.
I disagree there, because without our defense also holding Buffalo, none of those special teams plays matter.
If we drop a million punts at the 1 (like Zastudil did) it doesn’t mean anything if we let them march down the field and into the end zone—even once.
Special teams definitely contributed today—a lot—but I don’t think they were overwhelming. And even if they were able to overwhelm, how often does that happen in a pro game?
If we drop a million punts at the 1 (like Zastudil did) it doesn’t mean anything if we let them march down the field and into the end zone—even once.
Your over looking something. The ST’s putting the ball at the one took Buffalo out of their comfort zone, the shotgun hurry-up mode. This is “great defense”, and it was’ but the ST set the table for those events.
Either way, you need both elements for a win like today.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions
No, you don’t.
If those punts go for touchbacks but the defense is dominant and holds to a 3-and-out, we get the same result; a punt and the ball back.
Phenomenal ST, average D < Phenomenal D, average ST
Having good ST helps the other two phases—a lot—but it isn’t as important as the other two phases of the game.
Not to go all Jim Tressel, but do you understand that ST’s are controlled turnovers? The amount of yardage that is flipped and exchanged on Special teams every week is insane.
How many games has Josh Cribbs kept us in? (Pittsburgh in 07). What about ST costing us games? (Oakland in 07).
Chicago went to the Super Bowl in 07 with one of the best Special teams units of all time.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
And Pittsburgh actually won the Super Bowl last year with one of the worst. Kickoffs/punts rarely provide much, other than +/- 10-15 yards in field position. That’s meaningless if you can’t stop somebody, or can’t drive the ball. I mean, seriously, 1/3 of the game? It’s so obviously false as to be self evident.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
You’re right, it’s not 1/3 of the game, but it’s much more than 10%. I’d say 20-25% is about right.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Kickoffs/punts rarely provide much, other than +/- 10-15 yards in field position
Think about that. Lets assume your right about the 10-15 yards. If you have superior punt coverage team, as the Browns do, and they punt 9 times, like they did today, that could be (by your estimation) 135 yards of field position. Does that sound silly now?
That is more yards than Jamal ran for today. Special teams are very important. They, along with turnovers (after all a punt or kickoff is just a controlled turnover), are the great equalizers in football. Name a huge college upset that didn’t have a huge ST play or turnovers? ST’s change football games every week. Buffalo is two foolish ST plays away from being 3-2. That is a big deal.
I mean, seriously, 1/3 of the game? It’s so obviously false as to be self evident.
Ask Buffalo if it is meaningless. Or what about this game. Or Reggie Bush winning a Monday Night game by himself.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d like to know the cumulative record of teams that have punted nine times in a game.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I have looked everywhere. I am sure it is quite low.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we all know about the yardage exchanged and points scored on ST.
I think the real issue is the VORU (value over replacement unit, yeah I made it up) from top to bottom in the league.
If the VORU between special teams units makes a difference of 50 yards and 6 points/game, that’s almost nothing when compared to the value of a good defense versus our defense last year (an awful defense). Its also nothing compared to the value of a good offense over ours this year.
In other words, I would trade our ST (one of the better units in the league, IMO) for the worst ST unit in the league if I got the Colts’ or Saints’ offense in return.
I can understand that reasoning. My personal belief is that the major momentum turning moments come on ST’s. Big hits, big returns, TO’s etc.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Sure, but how often does it happen in the pros? And how momentum-changing is it when your defense can’t stop the other guy and your offense cant score?
See: OSU vs. Florida
Special teams are an opportunity to make a play, but I don’t think anyone has won a game entirely because of them. I don’t think you are arguing that, but I think STs are more dependant on the O and D than the O and D are on STs. So I am going under 33.3%, probably around 20-25%.
We made several plays today, but they wouldn’t have meant a damn thing if our defense didn’t hold Buffalo to 3 points.
I look at it like this. If your defense is strong and your special teams are strong and your offense is weak, your going to win some games.
If your offense and defense are strong, but your ST’s are weak, your going to win some games.
But if your ST’s are weak and offense or defense are weak, your going to lose most games.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Not to be a jerk, but can you start correctly using “you’re”? Just easier to read, and your grammar is flawless other wise.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Not going to lie. It has always been a hang-up for me. Just start typing to quick.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Just start typing to quick.
I don’t know if you did this on purpose, but that’s funny.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
There is nothing bigger about a big return than a 45 yard bomb… or a 20 yard QB scramble for a first on 4th down… or a sack/fumble… or a pick six. The difference is in quantity, not quality. And quantity-wise, “big things” happen a lot more often on D or O than they do on special teams.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Yeah, VORU is what I was getting at above- the difference in the NFL just isn’t as great as it is at the College, High school or even lesser professional leagues.
And I didn’t really consider that at first. Generally in football, special teams are just so important. Your talking every extra point and every field goal, that’s a lot of points. Ask the Bengals how it feels to have every one of those plays be a huge adventure. They’ve overcome it somehow, but that long snapper has cost them about a dozen points this year, by himself.
You are right- in the NFL, usually, that difference is minimized.
If I had to put a percentage on it for the NFL, I’d say 25-30%.
On the 2-deep man under defense in 3rd (or 4th) and long:
We really should be a little less predictable and sometimes give zone looks in those situations. If we had the middle linebacker in zone coverage we could have stopped the 2 rushes that have hurt us the past 2 weeks.
Yeah, it seems on 3rd down we are either in a zone-blitz or the 2-deep man under. I would like some mixing it up. Maybe drop a d-lineman in a short zone to help on the crossing routes and watch the QB.
Let me get this strait:
So we lose to the Bengals and it’s a moral victory?
But we win vs. the Bills and it’s not worth celebrating?
By that logic, losses are good and wins are bad? You people can’t be serious.
Just because it was quite possibly the worst game ever doesn’t mean it’s not worth celebrating…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I beleive our worst game ever wa a 42-0 loss to the steelers (Frye’s last game as a Brown)
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
this was pretty bad back in '99
9/12 L 0-43 Pittsburgh Steelers 73,138
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
this is honestly a case of one team not sucking as bad as the other. I celebrate the win, but I chastise the suckitude
by The Licensed Pessimist on Oct 11, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
How does playing great defense count as “sucking”?
And I’m soooo surprised that you’re complaining about this game. Is there anything the Browns can possibly do to make you happy?
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
and they lost!!
Its funny, when the browns do good they lose(last week) and win they do horrible they win(this week). I’m excited to see what happens next week
by The Licensed Pessimist on Oct 11, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Alright, I’m done. You cannot be pleased….
…by regression
by The Licensed Pessimist on Oct 12, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions