Brady Quinn is IN, Derek Anderson is OUT as Browns Starting QB
by Chris Pokorny on Nov 11, 2009 11:36 AM EST
in General News
410 comments
According to the Plain Dealer's Twitter feed, Cleveland Browns head coach Eric Mangini has named QB Brady Quinn as the team's starting quarterback for this Monday's game against the Baltimore Ravens.
This is the second time this season that Quinn has been named the team's starting quarterback. Quinn was the team's opening day starter, but was removed during Week 3's contest against the Baltimore Ravens and replaced by Derek Anderson. Anderson had started every game since then, reaching a new level on ineptitude.
"Brady has done a nice job in practice," Mangini said. "I expect that. That's what I asked him to do. I look forward to him taking advantage of this opportunity and playing well the rest of the season.
The decision might not be enough to fill seats this Monday, but I'm sure it'll add a greater level of enthusiasm for some Browns fans. And, as bad as this season has gone, Randy Lerner and company have responded with an attempt at changing things:
- The firing of general manager George Kokinis.
- Listening to the concerns of the fans (Note: granted, this one seemed awkward).
- The announcement that quarterbacks coach Carl Smith would have more input on the offensive playcalling as Brian Daboll "grows."
- The shift back to Brady Quinn as the team's starting quarterback.
Will these changes result in a better product on the field though?
0 recs |
410 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Here is my take on what the Browns need to do to help Quinn be a successful NFL QB.
http://dawgscooper.blogspot.com/2009/11/key-to-brady-quinns-success-is-in.html
http://dawgscooper.blogspot.com/
Dawg Scooper: An Unofficial Cleveland Browns Source
decent article, but with a few major flaws. first brady quinn has had 20 quarters of pro experience, plus pre-season. so to say this season was his first ten is misleading. also you essentially offer up the reasons your argument isn’t a good one. we don’t have two pro-bowl caliber receivers, and Eric Mangini is not josh mcdaniels
by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
5 games of action in 4 years is not anything to be evaluated. Wolf’s take is the height of “proper-leading.” Counting his other years and 2+ games of action as part of his resume is what is misleading.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
It’s not misleading to speak the truth. This is not his rookie season and this is not the first time he’s started games. Granted, he hasn’t had very much playing experience before this season — and I don’t think anyone would argue otherwise — but people who are trying to argue that this season was his first chance to play, and comparing him to a rookie, are just wrong. You can’t argue otherwise. You can certainly argue that he hasn’t had enough experience to be evaluated properly.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
Wrong, and thinking Rogers or any other successful QB is a plausible measuring stick exposes close to no knowledge of NFL football at all.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Rogers had less experience last year than Quinn has now. By your own faulty logic, that would make Rogers a rookie last year and a second year player in 2009.
has kwoog said anywhere that Quinn is a rookie? All I’m reading is that he’s saying Quinn is comparable to a rookie. Big difference, and a statement I agree with.
You are reading my signature.
What has Quinn been doing for the last two and a half years then? If he were a rookie or ‘comparable’ to a rookie, then he would be just as ready now had he went to grad school or worked for the water department since the ’07 draft instead of spending that time on practice and preparation.
A rookie is a rookie. A third year player is not a rookie and is not ‘comparable’ to a rookie.
Okay, you’ve won the point: Brady Quinn is, in fact, not a rookie.
But he has been named the starter by a second NFL head coach — and, more unfortunately, for the second time this season. This could be a result of the Browns being completely desperate at QB, or maybe there’s a chance Quinn is on the cusp of being a decent — or at least functional — NFL QB. To the latter point, on-field, gametime experience matters in making those determinations.
by Western Reserve on Nov 11, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, I agree mostly, but a lot of these guys are also capable of determining that without seeing them in live game situations. It is why great college QBs don’t all get a shot in the NFL. The majority of good talent evaluators in the league don’t need to see a guy in live NFL games to determine if they have a future at the position. Whether or not our current coach or past coaches had that capability is open for debate, but not everyone deserves a chance at playing time.
As a former first rounder, the fans are naturally curious as to why he hasn’t received more playing time, but as fans we know less than the coaching staff does (hopefully.)
Is this true? The NFL has a good record with QBs generally? My gut reaction is that there have been plenty of QBs who were given a chance and did flameout, and also examples of good QBs who didn’t get a chance until very late.
I’m sure we could find examples on both sides of the debate, but I have no idea what the general trend is.
I think in general, it’s a matter of there being coaches and talent evaluators who don’t know as well as others. I think the better talent evaluators are far more successful at determining the truth.
Yes, I agree. However, I think it’s also a combination of talent evaluation and the willingness/ability to fit the QB into the system. Can the coaching staff adapt their offensive schemes to best utilize the abilities of the player, or does the player have to fit into a tightly scripted offensive identity? It seems to me that Pittsburgh has an offense which is beautifully tailored to Rothlisberger’s skills. Sure, he’s good, but he’s also a great fit for that system. I wonder how much of Drew Brees’ emergence is due to his growth as a player (considerable, certainly), and how much is due to getting a system which plays perfectly to his strengths. Part of the system is, of course, the abilities of the other players around you. I heard it said that the Browns were running pretty much the same offense with both DA and BQ. If that’s true, it seems to be foolish, since they clearly have different skill sets.
I also think it has to do with finding that guy who is Hall of Fame worthy. Everyteam wants that QB that is going to be the next Payton Manning or Tom Brady. Who wouldn’t, but you need to give guys a chance to improve. But in this league, there is no time, you need wins and now, or else there will be a protest on Monday night.
I disagree with most of this, and the logic behind is the big reason why horrible Front Offices like Butch Davis’ and Matt Millen’s exist. You can’t know what guys are capable without NFL reps, especially at the QB position.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Except for the many undrafted college players. Even with 200 rounds of drafting there are still tons of players that don’t get drafted.
Front Offices do a pretty good job of narrowing down the many players available and finding those that are capable, even if they don’t hit on every one.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Right. Look at a guy like Graham Harrell — he put up big stats in college and had a great career, but he never got drafted and didn’t last long with the Browns in the preseason. NFL guys saw that he didn’t have what it takes to be a NFL QB without seeing him play a single down in the league. You can go back and look at decades of college players and see that the NFL is right way more than it is wrong, even they do have some high-profile misses occasionally (Tom Brady and Kurt Warner for the good, Ryan Leaf, Heath Schuler, Akili Smith for the bad).
When you look at the entire set of college players overall, most front offices are pretty accurate when it comes to judging talent based on what they see from the player in college and in workouts.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 8:42 AM EST up reply actions
The undrafted college players become successes because of real NFL reps, pure and simple. James Harrison, Josh Cribbs, Tom Brady are all successes because they got NFL reps.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Note: Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round by NE.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Nov 12, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
I would argue that it wasn’t NFL reps that made them good, but that the NFL reps helped them achieve the talent that went undiscovered.
If Bledsoe had thrown for 4,000 yards and 27 touchdowns that season, Brady’s never in. If the next year Bledsoe doesn’t get injured but sucks, Brady still probably doesn’t get in.
His YPA for his first 3 games were 4.6, 7.3 and 3.58. Quinn’s this year are 5.86, 5.19 and 4.25.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
If Brady is that good then he gets in eventually. It may have taken longer, but Bledsoe wasn’t going to play forever. Steve Young sat for quite a few years waiting for his turn behind Joe Montana, but he eventually showed that he was worthy of a starting job and Montana was traded (I think — or he wasn’t resigned).
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
All intentions were to have Bledsoe be the starter for years to come. in 2001, Brady’s first season he started, Bledsoe signed a then record setting contract. It wasn’t till he got hurt and Belichick had to manage Brady that things went his way. A 10 year contract doesn’t sound Brady was being groomed to be a starter. But the system worked, because the coach could exploit his strengths and weaknesses.
Not necessarily. It obviously took until they were forced to play him in gametime situations that they realized what they had and that he would be their guy.
Sometimes anomalies happen. Outliers. Let’s face it: 6th round pick Tom Brady and his potential were missed until he got the chance to play.
by Western Reserve on Nov 13, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
Of course outliers happen . . . I’ve never argued otherwise. In fact, I’ve repeatedly stated that same fact. But the very fact that those players are outliers implies that most of the time players aren’t missed, otherwise they wouldn’t be outliers.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
The irony is that you are arguing for the talent evaluators and yet still insist Quinn is bad. In that scenario, we’ve been doubly duped: 1) his first round selection; 2) him being good enough to win the job as starting QB.
by Western Reserve on Nov 13, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not denying that undrafted players can’t become successes. I’m saying that you can find out what guys are capable of without NFL reps (not all the time, but alot of the time).
Per your example, somebody could tell that they, although undrafted, were good enough to make a NFL roster.
Obviously some guys end up showing more with more playing time, but personnel on many teams are sophisticated enough to determine who deserves those chances and who doesn’t.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Tom Brady also knew the defenses’ plays. Being able to audible to proper blitz protection can help too.
by Simmsinns on Nov 12, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Your post is really not disagreeing with anything I said. Butch Davis and Matt Millen were terrible because they did a horrible job of evaluating who would be good in the NFL, not because they didn’t give guys a chance to prove it.
What I meant is that I 100% disagree that
a lot of these guys are also capable of determining that without seeing them in live game situations.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I think it goes without saying that there are always misses, but for the most part I think the good talent evaluators in the league know whether or not a guy can succeed without seeing him in live NFL situations.
Yep. This is an example of a situation where the obvious mistakes always stand out (such as the players I listed above) which overshadows the overall success of the system. Most drafted players do perform at approximately the level which was expected of him.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
This is insanity, no offense. “Most”? If by most you mean 20% (tops), ok… But then your math teacher license would have to be revoked.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I guess it depends on how “approximate” you want to be. If you want to say that a certain player who was picked 7th and was actually the 12th best player in the draft is a miss, then certainly. But I’m not being that exact.
Overall, though, top 10 picks have better careers than picks 11-30, and those picks perform better than second round picks, and second round picks perform better than third round picks, and so on.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
This might be true, but I would want to see some evidence of it in the way of hard statistical data. For example, the Colts defense this weekend is starting a bunch of low round draft choices and UDFAs. That’s partly due to injury, but they have an unusual number of low choices playing regularly for them. Surely there are other instances of this as well.
There are late round surprises and early round busts all over the NFL. Maybe those individual instances get noticed more and aren’t statistically significant, but again I would need to see evidence that’s true. When you say that picks 1-10 have better careers than picks 11-30, that is probably true if you’re comparing picks 1-3 with picks 27-30, but I would be astonished if that can be shown to be true for picks 7-10 compared to, say, picks 12-16. I just don’t think the lines are anywhere close to that clear. Where could we find that info without analyzing the draft position of every current NFL starter, creating some measure of significance, and then running the stats?
I’ve always wondered precisely what sort of numbers you’d get trying to evaluate draft success empirically. Granted, it would be full of ambiguity forcibly conformed for the exercise, but it would be interesting reading at least.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 13, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
As I said, the degree of accuracy depends on how exact you want to get. I don’t think that there would be much difference between the results from the 10th pick and the 12th, but I’m guessing there will be a big difference between the 7th pick and the 16th. You’d probably get an exponential graph, with the differences between picks greatest at the top of the first round then decreasing after that.
I’ve seen a study done for the baseball draft and the value for picks is greatest at the top of the first round and goes down significantly after that, but it does follow pretty closely round-by-round. And the baseball draft is much, much, much more of a crapshoot than the NFL draft, so I’m guessing that the results for the NFL draft would be even better aligned by draft position. I haven’t seen a study for the NFL draft but I’m sure that teams have done it.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Overall, though, top 10 picks have better careers than picks 11-30, and those picks perform better than second round picks, and second round picks perform better than third round picks, and so on.
All of this is wrong.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Top 10 picks do not have better overall careers than 11-30 picks. It’s not debatable, b/c it’s so patently untrue.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Uhh. . . yes they do. See my post below about Hall of Famers — since the 1970 draft, more Hall of Famers have been drafted from the first 10 picks of the draft than from all other picks combined. Top 10 picks are much more likely to have great careers than picks 11-30; it’s a proven fact.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 14, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
You might as well pic American League Home Run Champions. Hall of Famers is such a meaningless “stat” to base base your point as to merit no response.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
It is more objective than anything you’ve offered.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 15, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
I would say the exact opposite, that no matter what evaluation a guy gets, no one ever knows if a guy will be successful until he’s gotten the chance and done it in the NFL. I actually can’t believe anyone disagrees with this.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Of course they won’t “know”, as in be 100% certain, but they can be pretty close.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
Then why are there so many misses in the draft? I suggest that it’s because the choices aren’t really all that predictable.
Agreed. I’ll pick the 2005 draft, assuming that we know how good these players are by now. I just picked this at random knowing they’re in their 5th year (since i think the average NFL career is 4.something years). Some drafts may look better or worse.
Take a look at the top 10 picks. I won’t waste time in trying to prove that some of those guys are worthy of being drafted where they were, but it’s pretty easy to say that 1. Alex Smith, 5. Cadillac Williams, 7. Troy Williamson, and 10. Mike Williams were nowhere near the top 10 in this class. I’d argue none of them should have been drafted before the 3rd round. That’s very costly in terms of both dollars and personnel. I also think I’m being generous not including Benson or Pacman, for different reasons.
Frank Gore, Justin Tuck, and Channing Crowder were all 3rd round picks. All 3 would be top 15 guys if redrafted today.
Marion Barber and Brandon Jacobs were drafted back to back at 109 and 110. I think it’s fair to say each should have been drafted about 80 picks earlier.
It’d be a fruitless endeavor to rank all 255 drafted players for 2005, but I bet if you did (100% my opinion), you’d find that players were often drafted at least 2 rounds earlier/later than they should have been, if they should have been drafted at all.
You are reading my signature.
Yeah, doing this for one draft doesn’t tell you anything. Very small sample size. And I think you’re right, this is often talked about as an especially bad draft so the results will be skewed.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
i honestly just took a stab with that year’s draft. at quick glance, the top 10 in 2004 are pretty awesome, and the top 10 in 2006 are pretty good, yet still some TBDs. like someone else mentioned, i don’t know how you could rate all the players, so it’s a bit of an exercise in futility.
as i (again, quickly) glance at other drafts, there were some other bad years in the past decade as well. 2001 isn’t too rosy, and 2002 is less than impressive. in my opinion, there’s less evidence to prove that the talent evaluators are fairly accurate than there is that they miss by large amounts.
You are reading my signature.
I think we can all agree that talent evaluators miss.
It just seemed like you cherry-picked that draft because the whole top-10 pretty much sucked—and it is such an infamous draft because that phenomenon is so odd.
It depends on what you mean by “fairly accurate”. I would define “fairly accurate” as a general correlation of higher picks outplaying lower picks.
Obviously there would be huge mis-drafts. The standard deviation wouldn’t be 95+%. But as you moved the X axis closer to the first overall pick/first round, the success of the player (somehow numberified and plotted on the Y axis) would go up.
But are there really that many misses, or is it just selective memory? You remember the busts and the lower-round guys who became starts, but nobody talks about the guys who were supposed to be stars and were and the guys who were drafted late and never had an impact. Relying on memory for discussions like this can often lead to improper conclusions.
I teach a stats class and I talk about this often — something happens 9 times out of 10 and you remember the one time it didn’t because that sticks out in your memory, so you assume it happens more often than it actually does. This is the same way fans complain about a certain baseball player not getting a hit in the clutch, because they remember a couple situations where he struck out and not other times when he got a hit.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
Well said, BB. You remember the five times the psychic guessed right about your problems, not the fifteen times they were completely off base and groping in the dark. Then you tell your friends how amazed you were by their accuracy – because that’s what you remember.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 13, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that’s what I referred to in my post above. However, the fact that we tend to remember exception is not, in and of itself, proof that the other picks hold true to form. Again, I don’t know that they don’t, but I would have to see some evidence to come to that conclusion. We know that, in theory, nobody should miss with any of the first 5 choices (to choose an arbitrary number) but we know empirically that’s not true. It’s just tough to tease out the info without doing a lot of work.
Well, see my comment above about the MLB draft returns and how the NFL draft compares with it. I think we can all agree that the NFL draft gives much better returns than the MLB draft, so if the MLB draft holds to form then I think we can assume that the NFL draft does even better.
I’ve been trying to find something online showing a breakdown of NFL draft results and couldn’t find anything, but I did find a site listing NFL Hall of Famers by draft position. This is still a relatively small sample, because it includes only the greatest of the great, but I think it gives a general idea. I went all the way back to 1970 and the AFL-NFL merger, and this is what I found. This is where the Hall of Famers were drafted since 1970:
Picks 1-10 — 23
Picks 11-20 — 6
Picks 21-30 — 4
2nd round — 6
3rd round — 4
4th round — 2
5th or lower — 0
It’s pretty clear that the vast majority of great players come from the top 10 picks, more than the entire rest of the draft combined. The low number from 21-30 is deceiving since only in the past couple decades has the NFL had 30 teams, so many years there weren’t more than 20 or 25 picks per round.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
I forgot the link to the website where I got my info.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
That’s a great find and a good demonstration.
However, it fails to show the huge strikeouts and busts. Those numbers above tell us one is more likely to pick up a Hall of Famer really early in the draft, but it doesn’t say anything of one’s odds of picking up a total failure. This, of course, would be harder to quantify as there is no Hall of Shame. But imagine a ‘busts list’ of top 10 picks over that same period of time with, say, 30 names on it. Then the argument about the success of talent evaluation would look a lot different.
by Western Reserve on Nov 13, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
Valid point, in that you can certainly argue whether HoF inclusion is a good metric to measure success by. It’s a start though, and calling it useless seems excessive.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 14, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
Anything which doesn’t agree with kwoog’s point of view is useless.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 14, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
It’s useless. Pro Bowlers might make some sense.
Of course there’s a different overall success rate between 1st rounders and 6th rounders. However, there is not a difference between 1st and 2nd rounders. I’d say there’s a very fluid “two tier” system, based on a 53 round roster and how much reasonable overturn you can go through each and every year. Thus, 1st and 2nd rounders (and sometimes slipping into the 3rd) are all players picked to be starters and have a pretty consistent hit rate, whether 1 or 65. After that it drops off, both b/c of available talent and aforementioned roster limitations. There just aren’t 130 players better than NFL veterans coming out every year (better re: potential, not the player they are on draft day).
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
and have a pretty consistent hit rate, whether 1 or 65.
Consistent between the pick number, not consistent in succeeding.
I disagree with rufio that a 1 hits more often than a 2, 2 hits more often than a three, and that a 55 hits more often than a 56. To the extent that I don’t think a 12 hits more often than a 25. Why? B/c of scouting and development, the latter coming mostly in the form of game reps.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
there is not a difference between 1st and 2nd rounders
That is completely false, and I don’t know why you keep repeating things as facts which are just made up. 1st round picks are consistantly more successful than 2nd round picks no matter how you measure it — Pro Bowl selections, number of starts, years played, Hall of Fame selections etc.
Here’s a report I found online which studied draft returns. The report shows that top 10 picks make more Pro Bowls and start more games than picks 11-30, and those picks have more success than second round picks, and so on. It follows an exponential graph as I predicted in another post.
Thus your comment is blatantly false, so please stop repeating it as if it’s true.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 1:14 AM EST up reply actions
Now that’s some data, well done. I stand corrected that there is an exponential relationship. However, the pro bow graph also shows a much smaller gap between high picks and second rounders than you were promoting. Essentially, I think it corroborates my thought that the first 2, 2 1/2 rounds are markedly different in quality from the rest (2+ vs < 1), and that the highest picks aren’t wildly more successful than picks in the 60s (4 vs 2.5 or so).
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
That’s the only data which I could easily find. You haven’t shown anything which proves otherwise.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 14, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
So the only data you found was as relevant to this discussion as the price of natural gas in Russia. Good job.
I’m not going to do a research project to prove the obvious, especially when the opposition has provided nothing. There’s Matt Ryan and Tim Couch, and there’s Drew Brees and Kevin Colb. There’s Donte Whitner and then there’s Ed Reed. There’s Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald, then there’s Ochocinco and Desean Jackson… as well as Mike Williams and Quincy Morgan.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I’m not going to do a research project to prove the obvious
Not obvious.
by golanbatrac on Nov 14, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions
Naming first-round busts doesn’t prove anything. It’s not as “obvious” as you say it is.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
So as not to be dismissive (though your opinion merits it), I’ll give an example. One thing I was struck by during Quinn’s brief playing time this year was the number of times in the pocket he tucked the ball away in his left hand, like a running back. This showed he was “feeling the pressure” and instead of looking downfield he was overly concerned with a hit (from somewhere) and coughing up the ball. It was astounding how often this happened. Look at game tape from Notre Dame and try and find 2 instances where the ball was tucked in his left hand while he was behind the line of scrimage… you can’t, b/c he was attacking back then. This is a sign of lack of confidence and worrying too much about a making a mistake, which no QB can do and be successful.
Quinn is comparable to a rookie b/c his development has been stifled by being jerked around and having multiple systems without actual game time. In this sense, he’s worse off then a rookie.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
My opinion merits you being dismissive? Really? It was that bad, huh?
By the way, saying Quinn isn’t a rookie is not an opinion, it’s a fact.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
Bottom line is that he was given his best opportunity to become the starter and was making those mistakes. Regardless of development issues, he was making some terrible decisions, playing scared and making horrible reads on passing plays.
And “bottom line” is not how player evaluation occurs. We all know he had a (eye’s blink) of a chance, and wish he had lit it up. The fact that he didn’t is the most conceivable thing in the world, considering his history.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I don’t disagree, but like I said above, I think there is more to the evaluation process than how he plays in his first few games.
Yes, I agree. It’d be nice to have the insight of meetings, practice, and just a better overall knowledge of the game itself, but the best we can do as fans is watch the games and let those results speak for themselves sometimes.
I definitely don’t think that’s the best we can do. I think the best we can do is take an empirical approach to success. We look around the league, see what’s been successful and what hasn’t. There is no QB in the league that has been through what he’s been through and been impressive in 10 quarters. Not one. This is part of letting the noteworthy results (ie, the context) speaking. The only conceivable conclusion is he is an absolute and total unknown. To say he sucks is as egregious as saying he’s a pro bowler. Just as egregious.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
You have to admit though, it’s weird to think that the guy is drafted in the first round, and then doesn’t even get a full season to prove himself.
We’ve seen plenty of first, second, third round QBs that busted, but how common is it that they were determined to be so based on practice and meeting time, without even a full season to prove themselves? That seems very strange to me. I guess the other current example is Leinart, but he’s stuck behind an MVP.
And yes, I know we’re not using the “bust” word here, but it’s an accurate label if we’re talking about him not being good enough to start.
by dgcambridge on Nov 13, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
Correct. We as fans can’t know why after three years on a NFL roster he hasn’t been able to keep Derek Anderson from seeing the field.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Yes, we can. Because we’ve had two idiot coaches who care about winning rather than development. It’s the same reason Alex Hall didn’t play in the last 6 games last year, and why Jason freaking Trusnik is in over Hall, Veikune or Maiava.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Alright then the coaches are idiots. If Quinn was showing that he was that much better in practice he would have been playing. Obviously he wasn’t showing something that the coaches wanted to see. If you aren’t seeing it in practice why would you suspect that it will show itself in a game?
Also Trusnik has been playing well and he is in his 3rd year.
You’re right maybe there is something to this getting NFL reps as a 3 year rookie.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
If you aren’t seeing it in practice why would you suspect that it will show itself in a game?
B/c practice means very, very little as regards game success.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Every coach in every sport would disagree.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 13, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
Perhaps an exaggeration, but it’s no substitute for game reps, especially concerning the specific position of NFL QB. In essense, I agree with Jaws:
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_browns_offense_so_ba.html
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
This seems like the major disagreement in this thread.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 13, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
Then why practice?
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Because you have control over variables that you don’t have control over in a game.
You can actually take small chunks of the game and work on those instead of putting the whole game together.
You can make certain aspects of the game harder by introducing new rules (assessing points for losing fumbles, a rule that says the QB can only hold on to the ball for 2.5 seconds, etc.)
Practice should never be exactly like a game, in fact it should be harder than an actual game so that actual games feel easy.
I thought that’s what I was trying to say but found myself being told
practice means very, very little as regards game success.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Kwoog was trying to say that it isn’t success in practice isn’t comparable to success in games and that if you have success in practice, you won’t necessarily have success in games.
This is mainly due to the hitting, which can not and should not be simulated fully in practice with a QB.
It is also is because you play a different team—one who doesn’t know you or your offense as well.
Its also because you have to take all of those parts that you break the game into in practice and fit them together in a game. Pre-snap reads, snap count, footwork, post snap reads, delivering the ball to the right player at the right time, clock management, etc. 1st-4th downs, everywhere on the field. And you only get a couple of shots, whereas in practice you could spend all day working the 2 minute drill.
Seems like he was saying that practice meant nothing and only games mattered.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
If Mangini care about winning over development then he wouldn’t have traded Winslow and Edwards for picks.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
Well, it might not be as simple as that. Let’s not forget that Edwards and Winslow both had other issues that Mangini might have considered antithetical to developing a long term winning culture.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 12, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Long term winning . . . that’s the point. If he cared about winning over development that means he cares about winning now, not long term. Obviously he doesn’t, or he wouldn’t have made those trades because losing those players hurts our chances to win this year.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
You’re right, I shouldn’t have used the phrase “long term” there.
I meant, there’s a difference between “I’m trading my stars for picks and expecting those picks to produce great players in a year or three” and “I’m unloading loudmouthed malcontents because that’s not the culture I’m building here”.
Depending on how important you think that ‘winning culture’ is, you might expect the second to have short term results across the team, faster than those future draft picks might fully contribute.
This just makes the situation less clear cut to me. Maybe it points out some middle ground between “Win Sunday!” and “Playoffs in 2011!”
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 13, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Well maybe Mangini is a nut like ozzie newsome
Trading up in the draft for an offensive lineman, what a joke!
R.I.P. Tony Fein
May God watch over you wherever you are now and may you be in a better place. We will never forget you!
by Baltimore Warrior on Nov 14, 2009 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Alos, it's not mangini's fault they were traded
The GM is the only one with the ability to make trades.
R.I.P. Tony Fein
May God watch over you wherever you are now and may you be in a better place. We will never forget you!
by Baltimore Warrior on Nov 14, 2009 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
Trusnik is a known yet Quinn isn’t? Cherries and bananas too?
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
and I agree, how is Trusnick a known? He is a young special teamer trying to become a starting defensive player.
Perhaps I was a bit hard on him, thinking of him as an old, slow special teamer, and b/c Alex Hall has shown the athletic ability to be a game changer at LB.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I don’t agree with your conclusion that he is like a rookie, or worse than a rookie.
I did notice him tucking the ball in his left hand though. I didn’t really understand that. It was like a conscious decision he made anytime he was looking to run.
I don’t see anywhere where kwoog argued that Quinn either was a rookie, or “like” a rookie. He appears to be saying that he could be considered comparable to a rookie – a position which certainly has some merit. Certainly there are ways in which he isn’t comparable to a rookie (mainly the “benefit” of standing on the sideline and being second banana in practice, offset by changing schemes and coaches), but it seems to me that it’s a valid comparison in many ways.
As I said below, players get so much more practice time in the NFL than they do in college (and they’re practicing against much better players), so a third year player, even with limited game experience, still has much more experience than a rookie does.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
Even an NFL practice is nothing like an NFL game. Do you think Shaun Rogers has ever pancaked DA or Quinn in practice? No, he hasn’t. Live game time reps are so much more important… I’d even say that performance in an NFL Practice isn’t as important as performance in a college game (if they were to hypothetically happen to the same person… Say, Bradford plays USC one week and practices with the Ravens the next… the former is a better tool to judge his skills.)
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
No way. Maybe, maybe, if you’re talking the USC defense from last year which was loaded with NFL prospects, but that’s very rare (even for great college defenses). Even the best college defenses have few players who end up contributing significantly in the NFL. The talent difference is just so great — even the worst NFL defense is much better than the best college defense, and it’s not even close. And it’s not just the talent; it’s the physical difference between 20-year-olds and 25-year-olds and the time spent in the film room. Of course, you’re right that doing something in practice is different than doing it in a game, but combine training camp with preseason games and it’s much more valuable than playing in college.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
But they never play an NFL defense in practice. They always put on a red jersey and don’t get touched. My argument is that there is nothing like NFL game reps. Nothing. 10 drives in the NFL is worth more than 1,000 practices (to a guy who has played football all his life). Your argument seems to be that a large amount of practice can make headway into the dent of never getting actual NFL game reps. I disagree with this. And a rookie who has played in 30 games in the last three years is better off than a a 3rd year pro who’s seen 5 games in the three years… no matter what NFL Defense he’s practicing against.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Well I would imagine that the defensive schemes that a player sees in a NFL practice are more sophisticated and comparable to an NFL game then what he would be playing against in any college game against any college team.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Which is fine. And “seeing” them in NFL practice is about as good as playing Madden (hyperbole). QB has to have Casey Hampton in his face with James Harrison diving at his knees, and then make the proper read, often in a scenario that is wholly unlike anything he saw in practice.
I mean, we’re talkin’ ’bout practice.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Except it’s not the same as seeing them in practice because in practice you have to physically make throws against said defense whether they are hitting you or not. And quite possibly Quinn couldn’t make the passes without a defender in his face so why would you believe that he will be able to make them in a game?
I’m sure Quinn isn’t just sitting there telling the coaches which player he would have thrown to.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
What is basically what practice is? If that’s the case why sit a guy in practice if they aren’t doing anything? You make no sense. You start with a point that has some semblance of thought and then you decided to defend it no matter what and just keep coming up with more and more statements that push the boundaries of common sense and sanity.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
I don’t think there is a valid comparison. Rookies are adapting to a change in lifestyle, a change in the skill of defenses, a change in expectations, a change in length of season, etc., etc. Quinn doesn’t have these challenges. He’s been in the league for over 2 years. He has practiced against an NFL defense every day, learned NFL schemes (sure it would be a little better if he could stay in one system), and even seen the field for a handful of games for over 2 years.
Plus, specific to Brady’s situation- some of his strengths coming out of College was supposed to be his intelligence, that he was a 4 year starter for a major program and that he had played in a complex NFL style system under Charlie Weis.
We have every reason to expect Brady Quinn to be farther along than Josh Freeman at this point. Hopefully, he is. But it is anything but clear.
Give Josh Freeman some more time. The sun even shined on Kelly Holcomb’s ass one day.
Hey... Cleveland happens.
Oh, I’m not making any judgment on Freeman. Just saying that Quinn can’t really be compared to a guy that just got his first start in the middle of his first season in the league. His development should be ahead of Freeman, so far.
I actually like Freeman a lot.
Agreed. I like Freeman too. I think though that he will go through some bad days in his near future though. He is on a bad team. Quinn’s development should be further. Unfortunately he has been so mismanaged. Hopefully the stability of starting the rest of this season will improve his psyche and his confidence.
Hey... Cleveland happens.
And Quinn is NOT on a bad team?
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Nov 11, 2009 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
I hate to even bring up his name, but should we expect Quinn to be further along than Mark Sanchez? Does Brady’s 2 1/2 years of practice against the Browns 2nd team defense in Tuesdays through Fridays mean that much more than the extra two NFL games Sanchez has started?
You are reading my signature.
Yeah, I hesitated to mention Sanchez too. That’s why I mentioned Freeman- a much clearer case. Though I did mention Sanchez below.
I do think Quinn should be ahead of Sanchez and Stafford. But obviously 1/2 year of starting consistently starts to be equal time spent as 2nd string. Any line that I would draw would be arbitrary, but at some point a rookie starting would catch in meaningful experience/development a 2nd year guy that has never played in experience. But Quinn is a 3rd year guy, who does have some preseason and regular season starts. Another entire offseason and training camp is pretty significant.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Yep, on Sept 1 he’s comparable to a rookie. Now he’s less than. It’s not hard.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
wait, what? He’s comparable to a rookie before the season (despite his extra preseasons, training camps, practice weeks, and regular season game experience). And now, he is less than a rookie? I don’t get it. Even by your measure of real game playing time being the only thing that matters- Brady Quinn has gotten more playing time than most rookies, even if you only count this season. He’s played 2.5 games plus one drive. There are, what? Two QBs that have played more as rookies this year? And I would say that is probably higher than most years.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 13, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
I guess the Browns coaches are so bad that he actually forgot some of the football which he leaned at Notre Dame, so he’s now dumber than he was three years ago.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
Anyone who has ever become a specialist in something knows that you most certainly can become dumber in something in 3 years, despite being around it all the time. Brady Quinn knows football better than 99.99% of human beings. His goal is to be one of the 32 best at something in football. Seeing literally minutes of actual game action in 3 years could definitely make him “dumber.”
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
2.5 games plus one drive is a lot more experience than most rookies get in half a season. Therefore, Quinn has more experience in meaningful games, in this system, this season than most rookies.
Quinn > Rookie in experience, even if I take EVERYTHING you state as 100% fact.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 15, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
Kwoog is running circles around everyone. And by running circles, I mean that he cites himself as a source.
making the above exchange even more special because I was trying to use him has a source too.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 16, 2009 10:12 AM EST up reply actions
That response was to the poster above me who said you didn’t say Quinn was a rookie or like a rookie but comparable to a rookie. They mean the same thing.
What are you saying now? That the two games he played this year make him not a rookie? He’s a college QB now?
/end transmission
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Quinn was a rookie or like a rookie but comparable to a rookie. They mean the same thing.
That was me. I don’t think they mean the same thing. “Comparable to”, IMO, means that there are given elements between them which can be compared, or are similar. That’s not the same thing as “like.” It’s obvious that BQ isn’t a rookie, has some advantages that true rookies don’t have, but in other respects is similar to many rookies: hence, comparable. It also depends on what the term “rookie” means. Look at MLB, where Ichiro can be rookie of the year, despite many years of professional experience elsewhere. (without getting into what the meaning of “is” is.) Not a great comparison, granted, but one with some validity, I think.
And in response to Brad’s post above, I would have to say that Quinn appears to have regressed since his college days, or coming to the Browns. That’s not a measure of the dumbness of the coaches, but could be attributed to inconsistent, changing, coaches with differing emphasis. When i first saw him play, I thought that he just looked like a QB in how he carried himself, leadership on the field, and confidence. This year he exhibited exactly none of those qualities, so they went somewhere.
I disagree. Having a year on a team and on the sidelines of an NFL team can be very helpful for a new QB. Quinn hasn’t gotten a good look. I don’t think you or I can fairly evaluate him fully because he hasn’t gotten a ton of game action. And I think there is a chance he improves.
But he isn’t a rookie, or really anything close to a rookie.
Right. Players get so much more practice time in the NFL than in college, and they’re practicing against much better players. A year (or two) as a backup QB in the NFL still gives a player much more experience than a guy right out of college.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, I think it is fair to say that Brady has less experience than Matt Ryan at this point, even though he has been in the league for an extra year. But Brady shouldn’t get compared to a rookie like Stafford or Freeman or Sanchez.
My point:
Our problem is way beyond quarterback, and I don’t think that the disparity in talent between a Brady Quinn and a Mark Sanchez (if there is any) will do anything for our win-loss column.
Hey... Cleveland happens.
How about this? The Browns will not be consistently good until we find a QB that is in the upper third of QBs in the league.
I can’t argue with that.
I also feel that if we don’t improve the rest of the offense dramatically, we are just going to continue to be a career killer for quarterbacks.
Do you ever wonder where they would be today if Tim Couch and Donovan McNabb would’ve traded teams on draft day?
Hey... Cleveland happens.
Do you ever wonder where they would be today if Tim Couch and Donovan McNabb would’ve traded teams on draft day?
with cleveland’s luck, mcnabb would’ve been awful and tim couch would be amazing.
Tim Couch was never going to be amazing. True, the Browns were horrible and that didn’t help his situation but he was not a good quarterback.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
But he might have been a league-average quarterback in the right setting. Other than a short stint in 2007, when have the Browns had a league-average QB otherwise? Couch wasn’t ever going to be stellar, but he did have some skills.
Couch threw screen passes. That was the extent of his skill level. Granted he was probably smarter than many of the quarterbacks that we have had but as far as physical talent he was on the lower rung.
I say this from watching him in college as well as seeing his highlights on TV in high school and he was almost a god here.
All that said he got screwed by the Browns and because of that he lost the chance at becoming a career back-up, which is not a bad career path.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
I think it’s fair to say he has less experience than Sanchez and Stafford.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Quinn is 40 career attempts behind them both (20%). Stafford has played in 6 games, Sanchez 8, and Quinn in “8.” However, 2 of Quinn’s games are one drive each (San Fran in 07, Chi last week), and another is the half against Baltimore this year. So that’s more like 5 1/2 games…
You can stop disagreeing with me now.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Quinn has 1.5 more training camps, 3 or 4 more preseason games, and 2 more seasons of practice.
You may think that all means nothing. I happen to that all means that Quinn should be more developed at this point than Stafford or Sanchez.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions
Agree to disagree then, b/c I do think all that means nothing. In the literal sense.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Yeah, might as well stop. At this point, my only answers are to quote myself from up thread. I think I’ve maid my point pretty clearly, and pretty clearly you disagree.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe it just means that Stafford and Sanchez are better QBs then. Because it’s really difficult for me to believe that they are getting more development out of the games that they are playing compared to the amount of time that Quinn has been on our roster.
You can’t work on your footwork, your throwing, your reads, your timing with your receivers, etc. during an NFL game. You have to do that work before to prepare yourself for the game. That’s why teams practice and study film. It’s impossible for a guy to just go out on a field and perform and consistently get better without practice.
And it is that practice which makes Quinn not a rookie and not comparable to a rookie.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
His problem isn’t footwork. And the most important place you work on your reads is during a game, b/c practice cannot replicate the actual environment. Other than a big discrepancy in yardage, his numbers are comparable. Of course, that’s very important, but Quinn’s detractors really don’t have a leg to stand on. The worst rational opinion one can have is that he’s an unknown.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I wasn’t saying his problem was footwork, if you keep reading I listed other things that a QB, any QB would need to work on to be successful. The point is if you don’t have the tools before the game you aren’t going to miraculously develop them in game. If anything you would resort to same poor mechanics that you already possess.
Also practice doesn’t have to completely replicate the actual game environment. If you can’t make reads in light/no contact practice how are you going to do so against live action?
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Whether or not he’s making the reads with light/no contact is irrelevant, b/c it’s worthless. I can’t believe people are arguing against this. Game reps, and only game reps matter. An NFL regular season game is just so different…
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Well than I should go get myself an NFL job, because all that matters is game reps. Maybe you should be my agent and just tell them I’m worth millions but you have to play me in real games to see my talent.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Practice?
Ha, looking back up I see you were hilariously suggesting his experience is comparable to Matt Ryan, so there’s his experience for sh!ts and giggles.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Well, I said that Quinn “has less experience than Matt Ryan at this point, even though he has been in the league for an extra year.”
In fact, I said the clearest example of my point is Josh Freeman. Josh Freeman is a rookie, and my point is that Brady Quinn should be more developed than Josh Freeman.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
The only way Quinn would be comparable to a rookie is if he had been hurt during his rookie year and had been unable to participate in team functions on the field. Even then he would have been able to participate in the classroom.
Quinn is not a rookie, he has been in the league he has been through practice, just because he hasn’t played many actual games does not make him still a rookie. If anything it makes him a, nevermind that’s another topic.
When all logic points a certain way it’s not persuasive to just state you don’t believe something to be so, so therefore it isn’t.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Apparently, you do not understand the underlying meaning behind it then.
http://dawgscooper.blogspot.com/
Dawg Scooper: An Unofficial Cleveland Browns Source
no i understand, and i agree that the offense could be designed to take advantage of quinn’s strengths, i just don’t think we have the personnel for it, let alone the coordinator
by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
my point was that a couple of the arguments you used weren’t entirely accurate.
by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
I’d have to disagree with your argument W0LF. You laid it out clearly, but I would say:
- When you shorten up the passing game so much, you have to be extremely extremely accurate. At some point, it becomes too hard. And requires great hands on the receivers, which we don’t have (as you note).
- Even at Kyle Orton’s 83 percent on short passes, the Broncos are definitely not moving the ball. Their offense is poor. Orton opened up Monday night’s game connecting on those short passes, but never got into the end zone. As the game progressed, he got worse, and they were done. Their offensive is mediocre.
- Are we sure that Quinn can’t go deep? I’m not.
- I can understand when teams go to a short offense when their model is to win games with D (such as the Broncos). But I hate when teams go short and conservative just because their offense is struggling. If you’re a bad team, I say go for it. Mix it up, take chances, see what you have, “practice” aggressive plays in the games now when your record doesn’t matter. Don’t make it even harder on yourself by compressing the field. That’s the spiral of doom.
The Denver offense was poor on Monday night because they were playing the Steelers and the Steelers totally shut down their running game. Denver’s offense is built on the short pass and the running game setting each other up, and when the Steelers shut down the run the short passing game could not be effective.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Nov 11, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
Disclaimer: I have not yet read Wolf’s article.
1. At the point when defenders start jumping routes, start creeping up, etc. that’s when you go over the top. Sluggos, post-corners, out and ups, etc.
2. Fair. But consider they were playing the steelers’ D, and had probably been given the blueprint of how to stop the Broncos because of the Ravens’ game the prior week.
3. Quinn can throw the ball deep. We saw him throw it 55-60 yards in the air during the preseason. The real question is can he go deep accurately, consistently, and confidently enough that he doesn’t become the next Chad Pennington. No one besides MAYBE the coaches have that answer right now, and their answer wouldn’t even come from live-game situations.
4. I think the problem comes when you compress the field both horizontally and vertically. If we used some more spread (read: 3+ WRs, aligned away from the formation) I personally believe we’d be a much more versatile team, we’d be able to complete more of those short passes, and we’d be more effective on offense.
Our TEs simply are not good enough to be able to get open consistently when we face 8 man fronts, which is critical. If we take one of them off of the field, the numbers game changes a little (to pass when there are 7 in the box, run when there are 6) but it is better than checking to a pass when there are 8 in the box and still being at a disadvantage.
by rufio on Nov 12, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If we focus our offense on the short-passing game, Quinn must be very accurate. The receivers need to be able to catch the ball in stride so that they can gain yardage after the catch. In Quinn’s first 2 1/2 games this season, he was not doing this. The receivers had to adjust too much to his passes and this gave defenders time to close in. We’ll have to see if Quinn has made this progress.
The receivers need to be able to catch the ball in stride (and hold onto the ball), so that they can gain yardage after the catch.
fixed
by Chief WaDrew on Nov 11, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
I’m mentally preparing for BQ vs. Ratliff myself.
But I’m trying to be optimistic, really I am!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Anyone do the numbers yet? Is it at all possible for Brady to get 70% of the snaps at this point?
I’m lazy. I did do this though:
10.5/16= 0.66
So looking at this VERY rough figure, they’re safe.
Hey... Cleveland happens.
My guess having done that same simple calculation is that he will not get to 70%. Especially when you take into account that up until this time the Browns have been losing the time of possession battle. There would have to be a significant turn-around in order for there to be enough snaps for Quinn to claim his additional fortune.
Brownsyup
Especially when you take into account that up until this time the Browns have been losing the time of possession battle.
But that’s actually going to make it easier for him to get to 70% of the snaps, because the offense has been so terrible the first eight games that we haven’t run many plays. If the offense starts having longer drives over the second half of the season and thus runs more plays per game, it wouldn’t take much to get him above the 70% threshhold.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
At that point though, it might be apparent that since Quinn is leading us on longer drives, he deserves to earn the money. If not, Ratliff might get a start at some point.
Long drives. I’ve heard of such things. I consider them to be some sort of urban legend, like crocodiles in the sewer.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Nov 11, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
I know there are alligators in the sewers of New York.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Just ask the mole people.
Who knows, maybe Moon’s recruiters should take a trip down there to bring some untapped talent to light….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
Well, we’ll having to get Moon’s take on their physical characteristics first. I don’t think I’ve heard his evaluatory position on players with more than two legs yet….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 12, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Or fullback, as they do have a very strong back.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 12, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
Tru dat. Hence the “significant turn-around” statement in my original post. But you make a good point. If the Browns even become average in time of possession, the number of snaps will become correspondingly better than in the first half of the season.
Brownsyup
I understand that you mentioned the possibility of a turn-around, but you implied that the Browns’ terrible offense in the first half would make it harder for him to get to 70% off the offensive stats when the opposite is in fact true.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Outstanding, really. I hope he’s had the practice reps to make the most of it!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions
Sounds like it could be fun. Anyone else think we can go 4-4 the rest of the way? (thats not a reach).
Also what is the status of the silly protest? Will the butts be in the seats or not?
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 11, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
At the beginning of the year, I thought they would go 4-4 over the second half of the season, but now that has to be considered very optimistic. I could see them winning anywhere from 0-3 games, but any more than that and I would be pleasantly surprised. This upcoming game should tell us a lot: Baltimore has been reeling, so the Browns have a better shot than I would have expected. However, I see no way that they beat Cinci or Pittsburgh.
It’s my sincere hope that DawgPoundMike and his silent partner are the only ticketholders who miss the first play of the game.
I’d like to know exactly where his seats are so I can sit there for kickoff.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Nov 11, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
worth my time to treck down there for kickoff, and then miss the next 10 minutes getting back to my seats in section 509, row 3?
better yet, maybe Randy Lerner should go sit there for kickoff.
You are reading my signature.
I think it would be priceless to see Mike’s face when he finally gets to his seat to see Randy sitting there with a “My team, My rules” expression on his face.
by Chief WaDrew on Nov 11, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Or Cribbs runs one back…
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 11, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
Wave to the folks watching at home, rolub!
We should start a counter protest to squat in all the empty seats for kickoff.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
Heh. Here I was thinking that the squatters would quickly stand up when the rightful seat holders arrived, smile, shake hands with their fellow fans and heads for their real seats, nice as you please.
Urine did not figure into this vision, obviously.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
I hope those fans miss Josh Cribbs returning the opening kickoff for a touchdown. On the other hand, though, it would be a disgrace for Cribbs to see an empty Dawg Pound after the score.
On the other hand, though, it would be a disgrace for Cribbs to see an empty Dawg Pound after the score.
He should do this:
http://jockandballs.com/2009/11/02/soccer-player-celebrates-goal-by-sitting-in-the-stands/
by golanbatrac on Nov 11, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Jump in and sit down in them? Beautiful.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 11, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
Or swig a beer? But I wouldn’t want him drunk.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 11, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
something tells me josh cribbs is no lightweight
by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
and by something i mostly mean his hair
by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
I expected this against the Lions, not this week. I hope the fans give him a break and don’t boo him out of the stadium if the Browns continue to falter on offense. It is going to be a tough start. I’ll be there and I’ll NOT be booing. I like the fact that he’ll have had the bye week to get in tune. I hope that coach Mangini will leave him in place for the rest of the season (indications are that he will). We need to see what we have in Quinn going forward.
If Quinn has a breakout game this week, it could signal a turn-around for the team. Hope waxes eternal once again in Browns town!
Brownsyup
Reading this, and the Judge interview, I’m uneasy with Mangini’s focus on “meritocracy.” The balance is between meritocracy and stability, and I think Mangini leans too far to the former. It seems very unlikely that Quinn and Anderson are prima-donnas who will not work and need to be motivated by constantly looking over their shoulder.
We get it already, Quinn wasn’t going to be handed the job just because he was an expensive first-rounder. You’ve made your point, can we move on now and build? Even now with Quinn, he seems to hedge his comments as if Quinn might be pulled again soon. I think in this situation, name Brady the starting QB a week ago, tell him that this is his team, and get him all the reps.
I’m not thrilled about the way the decision was made for Monday’s game, but I do applaud the outcome. I do think that this statement is at least a bit of a vote of confidence from here:
I look forward to him taking advantage of this opportunity and playing well the rest of the season.
DA’s out, and theoretical / practical discussions aside, I’d say the book odds on Ratliff seeing the field for the next month are slim to none.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Could be, could be. Let’s hope in lieu of strong options that BQ gets some stability and reassurance for the next month or so.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Stability can’t be imposed though, can it? If the balance is between meritocracy and stability wouldn’t the scale initially be weighted toward meritocracy and only slowly tilt toward stability as players earn their position in the starting lineup?
I think Quinn will start the rest of the season unless he gets close to the 70%. Then I can see Mangini coming up with some excuse to pull him. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Quinn is the starter again after it will be very hard for him to get the 70%. As bad as DA has been I think that was the plan all along.
Looking at the remaining 8 games, 4-4 is pretty damn possible. We can beat Oakland for sure and maybe Detroit too. Not too high on the KC and JAX games. Those teams can put points up and we can’t score with a chick who lacks self esteem.
Winning those last 3 games would be huge for our young player’s confidence. It would motivate them during the off-season.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
Unless we step up our play, they’ll beat us by a couple TDs.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Nov 11, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
It’s pretty amazing, but there very well might be 5 or 6 teams with worse records by the end of the year.
So are we excited about possibly having a lower draft pick?
by Chief WaDrew on Nov 11, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
I think having a lower draft pick would be sheer torture for Mangini. He’d have to knock himself out trying to get rid of it again so he wouldn’t have to pay them.
Yes. I’d take either. Do you think Mangini would? I don’t recall how high his picks were with the Jets, or if he traded down there, too.
They stayed at 4 or 5 and selected D’Brick. They stayed at 6 and selected Gholston. I think if the right player is there, he would not be opposed to selecting him high.
The only game I went to last year was the Monday Night Football game against the Giants. I should be going to this Monday’s game against the Ravens, so I hope I can bring some good voodoo to the team.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
I envy that experience. You are a lucky man!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
thank god.
i’m going to remain positive and say that quinn will play better this time. the o-line got better since DA took over, so having time to throw shouldn’t be too much of an issue. i also think that quinn knowing that there’s a -3249024% chance of DA getting put back in will help. ratliff will not be starting.
Change that negative sign to a decimal and your statement would be more accurate.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, that was just the math teacher in me coming out.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
When I initially read it I didn’t see the negative at all. I became very concerned.
by Chief WaDrew on Nov 11, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
Ouch.
I’m hopeful too that the improved offense line and general circumstances will help Quinn settle down a bit. Time will tell.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
mangini said he’s had good practices and has been working harder. hopefully the benching helped him learn from his mistakes.
I read that too. Hear, hear!
I’d like to think that if nothing else we’ll see BQ air out a few more footballs than in the past, given more time and a less unsettled situation.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
Being a Quinn supporter, I am all for the move. I still think with good skill people around Quinn I think he can be a decent QB.
Just draft CJ Spiller next year.
Unfortunately for Brady, I don’t think one draft is going to put enough skill guys around him to keep him in that position thru next year. This team needs a good two or three drafts to rebuild (and that’s assuming we get more bang than busts) and I really can’t see any coach giving Brady that much time. Especially if he struggles the rest of this season. As bad as we are, we’re not the Raiders.
spiller should be a heisman candidate. he’s done so much more than tebow this year. the guy’s a RB (duh), but in clemson’s offense he’s also a WR ocassionally and a kick returner. i can’t remember the exact number, but in clemson’s win over fsu, he tied his own school record for like 300 something all-purpose yards in a game.
that said, i’d love the browns to draft him. but he’d probably go late in the first round. it’d be nice to see him fall to the early 2nd.
As a person who has never liked Quinn, and thought we should never have drafted Quinn, and thought doing so has only hurt this team: I like the move. I can “not like a guy” and still want them to be successful. If Quinn can give us the best chance to win and help this team reach the ultimate goal someday then I’m all for it.
The problem I foresee is that he simply isn’t that good. Still better than Anderson, without question, but it comes back to what I said months before the season started: We have two backup quarterbacks, well three now.
I wouldn’t have agreed with this sentiment before the season, but I am leaning strongly this way now. Hoepfully Quinn proves us wrong.
You’re probably right, but I am really looking forward to the change, and to seeing BQ get further playing time in order to make things clearer. Progress!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
me too. i want to believe he’s going to be good, but he hasn’t proved it so far. but things can change!
“Mangini said he’d like to stick with Quinn for the remainder of the season. Mangini has seen positive development in Quinn, who never lost confidence and worked hard in the weeks he was behind Anderson.
"I think his overall control of the offense has gotten better," Mangini said. "I think especially over the last two to three weeks he’s been very efficient as a passer and I’ve liked the things he’s done.""
please be true!
An efficient passer. Wouldn’t that be a nice change from the last few weeks?
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 11, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
Didn’t Quinn and DA both do “pretty ok” (which is 1billion times better than the “horribly awful” level that both have played at during the season) during the preseason?
I suppose he can’t do much worse, so why not see what we got? Definitely a good idea to know for sure before we spend a draft pick on another QB,
http://www.nba.com/media/cavaliers/come_on_cavs.mp3
by johnnyphoenix on Nov 11, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
/agree here. I wasn’t a big fan of Quinn at any point but I did like the original acquisition as I thought his trade value might be very good in the right situation (injured QB on another team). That never materialized. Now I feel that he should be kept in until the end of the season. At that point it will be much easier to see if he is The Guy.
Brownsyup
All My Personnel
Like the rest of you, I’ve been suffering as a Cleveland Browns fan for way too long now. But I gotta let you know that, this week, I had a revelation that has changed my life.
You see, I figured out in a flash of brilliance (if I do say so myself) that the problem is not with the Cleveland Browns or their organization (generous use of language there).
The problem is with me.
For years, and I mean going all the way back to the mid-60’s when I watched championship-caliber professional football (How many people around today saw Jim Brown run through 40-yard mudpuddles on his way to victory?), I perceived the Browns as a professional football team, and that’s been my problem.
The truth is, the Cleveland Browns now are not that and we should not perceive them as such.
Today . . . they’re a soap opera
Yes, they put on uniforms and talk the talk each week, but the truth is, they are and have been operating for the past ten years as a continuing soap opera. And when I figured this out, I was SAVED!
Get a load of the cast:
Al, the team’s Sugar Dad-owner who is living out in his old age a kid’s dream but, thankfully, dies well before he can watch what happens to his dream and his investment;
Randy, the Know-It-All, screw-up son who inherits the team but hasn’t a clue what to do with it;
Eric, the Kid Next Door who, through no fault of his own, gets picked to save the franchise . . . this year.
Julie, the Beautiful but Long-Suffering Wife who yearns for happiness but whose nights are filled with not just football crises but baseball ones too;
Butch, the Big Shot College Coach who spends the boss’s bucks like they were his (much of which actually DID land in his pocket);
Romeo, the Teddy Bear Of a Black Man who finally gets his life’s opportunity but, like everyone else in this “organization,” becomes clueless the minute he starts working there;
Carmen, the West Coast Slickster whose fast rap gets him what he wants;
Phil, the Good Ol’ Boy who is eventually roasted like a Southern hog;
George (part was cancelled due to lack of character development).
I’d like to submit two working titles for this weekend soap: “All My Personnel” or, better yet, “As The Front Office Turns.”
Sketchy concept, perhaps, but one that has nevertheless lasting on air for way longer than its original run.
And to think that the viewers are the ones paying to watch it!
by ploni on Nov 11, 2009 4:40 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Huh? And to think of the time put into this one. Woulda rather read about Luke and Laura.
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 12, 2009 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
Now it is time to see what Quinn can do.No more jumping back to Anderson let Quinn finish out the year so we can see what type of QB he might be.Give Anderson his walking papers now he is done here.
by Brownsfan4ever on Nov 11, 2009 11:38 PM EST reply actions
There isn’t a thread for this but I’d just like to ask, pertaining to the newsfeed, Lewis said “I’m tired of it”
What was he tired of?
The questions? Or football? If he’s already feeling like he doesn’t wanna play now, if he doesn’t feel motivated, then I don’t think he should play.
My guess would be the way the Browns sucked the soul out of him.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Probably tired of not being able to hit the hole as quick as he used to.
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 12, 2009 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not denying that he has lost most of his steps. However he still could of had some years left in him had he not been stuck in our mess.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
He had two 1000 yard season with us and I think he could have been set up for better seasons had he been in a different situation. As bad as he looks he is still averaging around 3.5 yards a carry, which is not great but considering what he has been surrounded with and his career numbers I think he probably could have kept that up or improved for another 2 years atleast.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Maybe, but that would be the exception, not the general rule. RBs get old fast.
by dgcambridge on Nov 13, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
100 yards rushing in one season is 62.5 yards per game. Not that impressice considering he barely hit 1000 last year.
I agree it’s not impressive within the NFL but for the Browns since we’ve been back? I was thinking on a better team he would have easily have equaled if not surpassed that.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
We should compare ourselves to other NFL teams and not the Browns of the past 10 years. Giving Lewis credit for being the only 1000 yard back is not going to make us a winning franchise.
1000 yards doesn’t mean much except on a team that in 10 years has only had one other 1000 yard rusher. My point was that I think Lewis could have had a better last few years in another place. Also I have no idea what his motivation is for his recent statements.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
Ben Gay averaged 3.4 yards a carry, over 4 is good, under 4 is below average..IMO.
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 13, 2009 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
What ever happened to Ben Gay? I’d love to see a where-are-they-now-feature on him. Anybody know anything?
He’s just tired… so tired… he’s just going to lay down for a bit here in the hole. It’ll probably still be there when he wakeszzzzzzz.
by Chemo on Nov 12, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well now he is publicly criticizing the playcalling and offense in general. thanks Jamal have a seat on the bench….hey Jennings! Here’s the ball.
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 12, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
All this discussion is mute.
The Browns have a new quarterback, in the already evolving future.
Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn resemble a vicious circle. They are willing participants in a charade. We should outright cut them, for playing with decent peoples´ affinities.
i’d prefer his discussions were mute.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Nov 12, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I’d love to see that conversation:
Mangini: “Sorry, Brady, but we’re going to have to cut you.”
Quinn: “Why, coach? I’ve only started, like, 5 games.”
Mangini: “You’ve been playing with decent peoples’ affinities, and we just don’t tolerate that kind of stuff around here. You know I want players with character.”
Quinn: “What???”
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
It means, they don´t give a rat´s ass about the Browns. They´re in this big predicament, and they´re not going easy.
by mooncamping on Nov 12, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
They have failed, and weren´t traded when their stock was high.
There are people to be blamed, greedy needy heedy people, who decided that if they don´t succeed here, they may not succeed anywhere else.
We are in the aftermath of that reality. And now everyone feels compelled to give the poor kid one last chance, because the Browns fans are soooooo gracious.
by mooncamping on Nov 12, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
And here is the scoop.
Cleveland fans are nice, and gracious, and wishing well.
But then they get gullible. And they miss the pendulum swinging.
And when they finally realize it, they get all nasty, and unforgiving.
by mooncamping on Nov 12, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
When it comes to lousy QB performance? Probably so.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 12, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
Even better — I was trying to come up with a good comeback but couldn’t think of something.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Both are gone in the near future. Now everyones worried, because it may seem like we don´t know how to treat quarterbacks, or something. Consequently these guys have to fail so badly, no one will want to give them another chance. It´s a mass hush job.
If Quinn succeeds on the other hand, with a dismal team, we have to retain all those sucky players. Because in Cleveland, the only way you´re leaving, if you scouted well, is by failing.
The reverse dynamic gets them every time.
I think it´s perverted.
If I want a different player, I get him. And if I can´t bench or trade someone who is oh so good, I cut them. Plain and simple. I don´t care if someone else gets them. If they make the Pro Bowl somewhere else, I don´t care one bit, because I´m playing who I want to play.
by mooncamping on Nov 12, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
That´s managerial freedom, and every club in the NFL has it.
by mooncamping on Nov 12, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
What are you going to do, sue me because I´m a bad judge of talent?
Please realize this. A high salary does nothing for job security, it´s just a bigger number.
by mooncamping on Nov 12, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
you do realize you just had a conversations with yourself, don’t you?
by Dawg Nuts on Nov 12, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Wait until you hear his press conferences.
On that note, I will pitch in $5 toward acquiring Moon a football franchise to run. I think the results would be more entertaining than most of the games that take place on any given Sunday. I can’t wait to hear Moon’s interviews with Tony Grossi.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 12, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
First, maybe we should contribute to a fund for his bid on the Silverdome. His team will need a place to play, and no better place than Detroit.
You are reading my signature.
Mangini - Cleveland, Ohio-AND- WILL the: REAL DOG-POUNDERS, please stand-up!
I don’t know how many times I have to KEEP getting up on my soap box-BUT- here I go AGAIN!!! 1) THE Cleveland Browns are a TEAM supported by CLEVELAND FANS, NOT once in a while, like the jokers in Miami etc… BUT ALWAYS! It became a national news story that BROWNS Fans were going to hold a protest against the TEAM and owner! Now the hurried media, couldn’t WAIT to jump on that one! AND again toss Cleveland back into the depths of Lake Erie to be forgotten. You guys want to do something constructive??!!? Then get off your orange & brown asses and start, calling, writing letters to: the Plain Dealer, the talk shows, the sports casters, the Radio stations, the TV stations, and yes, to the: Cleveland Browns. Simply tell them to HIRE: Bernie Kosar as our QB coach. That was a period -Not to tough, huh, sorry; but; I’m not in town; nor on – the – air any more
the:
“Nite”
Owl
16
by the: Nite Owl 16 on Nov 12, 2009 4:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I don’t know how many times I have to KEEP getting up on my soap box
well, this is your first time doing it here, so we regret reading welcome your inane ramblings.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Nov 12, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I love Bernie, but I can’t imagine why one would think his presence as QB coach would cure the team’s ills. Just a happy little bone to throw to the fans, maybe.
Also, I love the colon in your user name. Mind-distortingly surreal.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 12, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
LOL interesting post, do they even make soapboxes anymore, and if so wouldnt they be cardboard?
Spend some time here, I think you will see we all want the browns to succeed that is why it is so hard for us. But cmon Bernie as QB coach is the answer to it all? Maybe in the revitalization of P.O.C. maybe. ;)
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 13, 2009 7:56 AM EST up reply actions
I agree Nite Owl 19.
Bernie Kosar will make a great QB coach.
But we will not waste his expertise on Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn, as they are already playing somewhere else in the already evolving future.
As soon as we get our new QB, he´s more than welcome to be the QB coach. Having been a QB renowned to be one of the most cereberal, I bet he has a lot to teach.
Except that it’s well known that great performers very often make poor teachers. Why? Because they have a phenomenal understanding of their own physical and mechanical processes (what is termed bodily-kinesthetic intelligence). However, successful teaching and coaching requires that a person is able to analyze the mechanics, strengths, and weaknesses of others, then develop sequences for teaching them to improve. The demonstration model ("look, here’s how you do it’) has some value for some people, but isn’t a reliable way of instructing.
by drjeo on Nov 13, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
From further up in the comments:
Top 10 picks do not have better overall careers than 11-30 picks. It’s not debatable, b/c it’s so patently untrue.
I looked at Tackles taken in the first round over the five year period from 2000 – 2004. A total of six tackles were taken in the top ten, and 9 tackles were taken between picks 11 and 30.
Top 10 Tackles played in 89% of games from the year they were drafted through week 9 of the 2009 season. Top 10 Tackles started 87% of games. The six top 10 tackles combined went to 7 pro bowls.
Tackles taken between pick 11 and pick 30 played in 71% of games from the year they were drafted through week 9 of the 2009 season. The 9 Tackles taken between picks 11 and 30 started 59% of games. The nine Tackles combined went to three pro bowls.
G: 89% vs. 71%
GS: 87% vs. 59%
Pro Bowls: 7 vs. 3
Tackles taken in the top ten clearly have better overall careers than those taken between picks 11 and 30.
2000 [144 games]
****
[1-10]
141 141 chris samuels 3 — 98% 98%
[11-30]
081 056 stockar mcdougle 20 — 56% 38%
024 013 chris mcintosh 22 — 17% 9%
2001 [128 games]
****
[1-10]
no tackles taken in top ten
[11-30]
075 073 kenyetta walker 14 — 59% 57%
136 136 jeff backus 18 — 106% 106%
2002 [112 games]
****
[1-10]
055 052 mike williams 4 — 49% 46%
108 107 bryant mckinnie 7 — 96% 96%
096 089 levi jones 10 — 86% 79%
[11-30]
79 63 marc columbo 29 — 71% 56%
2003 [96 games]
****
[1-10]
103 103 jordan gross 8 — 107% 107%
[11-30]
068 057 george foster 20 — 71% 59%
086 055 kwame harris 26 — 90% 57%
2004 [80 games]
****
[1-10]
076 075 robert gallery 2 — 95% 94%
[11-30]
050 050 shawn andrews 16 — 63% 63%
086 072 vernon carey 19 — 108% 90%
- note, the stats on nfl.com include playoff games and playoff starts, thus vernon carey, jordan gross and jeff backus have percentages above 100.
Here’s a report that I found online (which I also posted above) that show the success of draft picks based on Pro Bowl and also the number of years as a starter. It clearly shows that picks 1-5 have much more success than the rest of the first round, and the top half of the first round has much more success than the second half of the first round. Picks 1-5 make the Pro Bowl at least once about 50% of the time which picks 6-15 make it about 40% and picks 15-30 make it about 20% of the time at least once. When you look at the graph of average years as a starter, it follows very closely an exponential graph (decreasing, of course) with significant differences throughout the first round and more gradual differences thereafter.
We all know that there are a few busts every year, but for the most part the players picked at the top of the first round become good to great players. So, overall, NFL front offices do a fairly good job of evaluating college talent.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
Good link. Results as expected.
The monkeywrench in the works would be performance versus value (value according to the draft-pick value chart). I think that’s where kwoog gets the idea that top ten picks are outperformed by first round picks outside of the top ten. A top ten pick involves a lot more risk than, say, the 21st pick in the draft, but that’s a function of salary not performance.
by golanbatrac on Nov 15, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
You’re exactly right . . . if you compared performance to salary then the graph would look much different, because the top picks are paid so much more. But that’s not what we’re doing. If we’re talking how about well NFL front offices evaluate talent then salaries are irrelevant.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
I still think there are some open questions about the talent evaluators if you can’t quantify the busts.
Consider the link you provided. It breaks the picks into groups of five and plots against number of Pro Bowls. But that means, for example, in a given year, if picks 1-5 produced a single Pro Bowler and four busts, and picks 6-10 were all solid players but no Pro Bowlers, it would provide ‘proof’ that the talent evaluators got it right because the higher picks produced more Pro Bowlers. There is absolutely no accounting for the mistakes.
The data also suggests late 2nd rounders and early 3rd rounders perform better than most of the 2nd rounders. This would seem to suggest misses.
by Western Reserve on Nov 15, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
I still think there are some open questions about the talent evaluators if you can’t quantify the busts.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Of course it’s the study is not exact. Using only Pro Bowl appearances isn’t a perfect system, but it gives us something. I think the second graph, showing the average years started, is more relevant that the one showing number of Pro Bowl appearances, because that would show all “solid players”, as you said. And that graph is clearly exponential.
I also have no idea where your get the conclusion in your last sentence.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
I’m saying the same thing as I said above: only the successes are being counted. Like your demonstration of Hall of Famers by round, counting Pro Bowlers in groups of five picks doesn’t tell us how often the talent evaluators got it wrong and picked a player that was a bust. It’s looking at the peaks but none of the valleys. For a fuller and more honest evaluation, the failures would have to be quantified and accounted for and then compared to the frequency of the successes.
The last conclusion is from your link. I still think the methodology is incomplete though I concede it does tell us something. There are twin peaks in the graph between picks 55-75 — a sudden increase in Pro Bowl appearance frequency.
by Western Reserve on Nov 15, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Uh, no, the failures are being counted as well. They took every pick and averaged the number of years that a player picked in that position started (for the second graph), so a player who never starts matters just as much as a player who starts for 12 years.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
Also, any time you do a statistical study on data it’s never going to adhere exactly to a smooth curve, so there are always going to be small peaks and valleys. Those don’t really tell you anything unless they’re significant, and the ones in this graph aren’t. This study only covers 13 drafts so there is still a rather small sample, not to mention the fact that the most recent draft picks haven’t had much time to play yet, so making any conclusions from a few outliers is unwise.
The first graph, especially, suffers from lack of sample size because there are only a few Pro Bowl players every year. And since this covers only 13 drafts, a few players can skew the results which is why you see the slight peaks and valleys. Again, that’s not really anything with which you can draw a conclusion from.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
I completely agree as that is the main thrust of my argument: there isn’t enough data, namely no accounting for the busts.
I’d agree the second graph is much more convincing, but you were focused on the Pro Bowl frequency graphs, which, again, completely omit the players that were busts. Again, hard to quantify as there is no Busts Bowl or Hall of Shame. Also, ‘busts’ is sort of a loaded word because it implies a player didn’t live up to his billing but for obvious reasons is exponentially more difficult to determine than simply looking at a Pro Bowl roster, as is the case for determining which players succeeded.
Lastly, if you factor in ‘opportunity’ and ‘value’ as is suggested via the link and here, the picture becomes increasingly cloudy.
by Western Reserve on Nov 15, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. As I said above, the graph of games starts includes all players, both the successes and failures, so of course it accounts for the “busts” (however you want to define it). And that has nothing to do with the sample size which was chosen; that is a completely different argument than what you’re making.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
No, I really don’t think so. I think you are missing much of the nuance here. I’m not suggesting an NFL GM would ever confuse me throwing a football with Peyton Manning.
I conceded the games starts graph is much more convincing. However, it still doesn’t tell the whole story. Even compiling starts, it doesn’t mean the player has lived up to his billing, i.e. the talent evaluators nailed it and got the most available value. Someone like Kamerion Wimbley comes to mind here (though he’s looking to get back to his old self).
Secondly, the Pro Bowl arguments have suddenly seemed to go out of vogue. I’ll consider this a tacit acknowledgment that the approach was flawed.
I think the talent evaluators are probably good at discerning the blacks from the whites but have a much more difficult time seeing the grays. And unless the busts, the misses and the failures are better quantified, I think a true evaluation of the overall job they are doing comes up short.
by Western Reserve on Nov 15, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions
Nothing “suddenly” went out of vogue; I stated from the beginning that the second graph showed the result best. But I showed three different studies (my own HOF argument and the two I linked to above) and while none of them are conclusive they all show the same thing — that top picks perform much better overall than later picks and the returns decrease exponentially throughout the draft. I conceded many times that none of these were a perfect study, but since they all agree with each other than I think they show something. And since nobody has given anything to show otherwise, other than to give examples of failed picks (which proves nothing) then I feel confident sticking to my original opinion.
This type of study is difficult to do with football players because it’s hard to quantify the value of players, especially when comparing player across multiple positions. If you’re looking at only QB’s or RB’s then it would be much easier, but how do you compare a QB to a OL to a LB? It’s much easier in baseball, where people have determined ways to quantify how many wins every player has produced so you can easily compare baseball players’ relative value. And, as I mentioned a few times above, I’ve seen studies done like this for the baseball draft and the curve looks the same — the highest returns are from the top of the first round and they decrease exponentially from there. And I think we can all agree that the baseball draft is much, much, much more of a crapshoot than the NFL draft, and there are many, many more draft picks in baseball who are “busts” than in football, so if the baseball draft has proven to be fairly efficient than I think it’s safe to conclude that the football draft is as well, especially given that it matches the data which I’ve already found.
I have no idea what you mean by “blacks and whites and grays”. If you are implying that the “blacks and whites” are the best players which are easiest to judge then you’re contradicting yourself with that statement because you keep repeating that there are many busts in the top of the draft, so then it wouldn’t be so easy to pick them. So I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than making up phrases because you’re at a loss for words.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 15, 2009 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
The self-fulfilling prophesy as mooncamping put it above is actually the statement “there are more busts at the top of the draft.” this will always be true because the expectations for a first round pick are extremely high. Any first round pick that doesn’t turn out to be a good players should be considered a bust. This label just doesn’t apply for other rounds. (Note: I am agreeing with you)
Actually, you seemed pretty pleased with the Pro Bowlers graphs initially, especially considering you led with those numbers and broke them down for us. But that’s neither here nor there.
Frankly, I think we may merely have some disagreement about the last 5-10%. I don’t hold some wholly contrarian view that talent evaluators are typically bad at their jobs in general. I conceded the information you’ve provided is a good start. I gave you plaudits for the Hall of Fame numbers. But I did want to point out some of the shortcomings and remark that a more thorough analysis — and I don’t expect you to have to do it — would probably be necessary to get a clearer picture of just how well the talent evaluators are performing.
This type of study is difficult to do with football players because it’s hard to quantify the value of players…
I completely agree. But I think ‘value’ is the key word there. That’s why I think it necessary to somehow quantify the players that missed expectations, not just players that met or exceeded them. I don’t think any of us would expect Detroit to suddenly have an onslaught of Pro Bowlers or future Hall of Famers simply because they have been picking so high for so long.
The ‘blacks and whites’ meant that no one is usually going to confuse a first rounder with a fifth or sixth rounder — I was giving the evaluators their due. The grays come in when the decision has to be made as to which guy to take in the first round to maximize value for a particular team. They also come in, speaking of a crapshoot, pretty much the entire NFL draft from the 3rd round and beyond.
by Western Reserve on Nov 16, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
Related FanShots on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
