Brady Quinn Shuts Up His Critics, But There's Still More to Prove
by theW0LF on Nov 23, 2009 3:07 PM EST
104 comments
Written by Daniel Wolf
Cleveland Browns quarterback Brady Quinn has to have one of the biggest media filters of any NFL player. He can just shut out all the bad talk about him to continue to play football despite the extreme amounts of pressure that are put on him.
Just look at the photo...Quinn looks like he is having fun.
Fun is a word that has not been said too often regarding the Browns over the past season and a half of football, but versus the Lions, there was nothing but fun on the field.
Easily one of the most (if not the most) entertaining game the Browns have played since 2007, SI.com's Peter King even called this game "...the worst game of the year" going into Sunday, but after the game King said it could have very well been "the game of the year."
Indeed it could be 2009's NFL game of the year.
0 recs |
104 comments
Email
Print
Comments
if quinn plays well the rest of the season, i say let him start next year. like the article said, if he has a good o-line he plays well.
i’d love to get weis here for oc.
by emily522 on Nov 23, 2009 3:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What I take out of this performance is.
1. Quinn actually had time to throw the ball
2. Quinn can throw the ball deep if the line allows
3. The OC actually called a play that was constructed to go more than 10 yards.
4. The Browns played the Lions.
5 Lets see what Quinn does this week against the Bengals before the we annoint Quinn Joe Montana.
by Grockcubs on Nov 23, 2009 3:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i agree with this assessment, especially the last 3.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone is just waiting to annoint a Montana, since ND has had QB busts for a long time. So lets see how it turns out, but lets hope that he just gets better from here on out.
by holmes213 on Nov 24, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1. Quinn actually had time to throw the ball
this was key. charlie weis said quinn would be good if he had some protection. well he got it, along with 300 yards and 4 TDs.
he also dealt with pressure a lot better. he wasn’t so quick to check down. and when he did, it usually worked.
daytondogg/ryan kelsey was right— the benching was probably good for him.
now, let’s get weis here…
by emily522 on Nov 23, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As long as we know Quinn is the guy, bring Weis.
by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 23, 2009 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With Quinn QB and Mangini as coach there is a good chance to get Weis. He and Mangini came from the same coaching tree.
by holmes213 on Nov 24, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The way I see it, Quinn just bought himself a full year as the uncontested starter in 2010.
The play that sealed it for me was the dropped TD by Jennings just before halftime. That was a fantastic play by Quinn.
by golanbatrac on Nov 23, 2009 3:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
that was the most beautiful throw by a browns qb this year and it was dropped :(
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The play that sealed it for me was the dropped TD by Jennings just before halftime. That was a fantastic play by Quinn.
yeah, it was. and if it had been caught… we would have won. not to mention the 2 long balls to momass were fairly catchable.
another positive was he was able to get stuckey involved too.
by emily522 on Nov 23, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you are right and that someone would vest their unwavering confidence in him for a whole season — the way I thought this year would be.
Also, I tend to agree that the dropped Jennings ball was probably actually his best football play of the afternoon — the way he pumped, made the defender bite and then put the ball right on the money with perfect touch. Too bad that one went through the hands.
by Western Reserve on Nov 23, 2009 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, it’s the first I’ve seen where he looked like a pro.
by golanbatrac on Nov 23, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that was the play of the game…
Jennings drop… was the key…
I havent heard anyone critizise the fake field goal… that was Absolutely horrible… there has to be a way for them to audible into an actual field goal on that play… they almost cost themselves that 3… for the coverage that was over there… the play was not a gimmie… even when they got the first… they still needed to kick… that was not smart football… a stupid gamble…
by thelonius7 on Nov 24, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it wasn’t just an attempt at a touchdown on that play though, if there had been another second or two they could have taken another shot at the end zone before kicking a field goal.
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There wasnt another another second or two. That kind of mistake shows a true lack of game management.
by thelonius7 on Nov 25, 2009 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no it doesn’t. that fake field goal could have easily taken a second or two less if the receiver gets out of bounds right after getting the first down instead of fighting for extra yardage.
by notthatnoise on Nov 25, 2009 8:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please stop the constant ellipses. It’s annoying; use complete sentences.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 24, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is linked to the way that I think. Make sure that if you are asking for correct punctuation, that you are indeed using it.
by thelonius7 on Nov 25, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Grammar fight! Drawn semicolons at twenty paces!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 25, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Regardless of the outcome, you can’t deny it was fun to watch. Don’t get me wrong, losing still sucks, but it was the most entertaining game this team has played in years!
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Nov 23, 2009 3:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i don’t know about in years, maybe in a year, but there were some pretty damn exciting games in ’07
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My bad, I thought I dreamt that season happening. I knew it was too good to be true.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Nov 24, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
haha yeah i sometimes forget we had a successful year in there
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure this is the best place to put this, but i’d like to revisit the buffalo game for a minute. many called that the worst football game they had ever seen. my question is: why isn’t this one? both defenses were completely inept, much the same as both offenses were inept in the buffalo game. I would just like to take this opportunity to hold this game up as proof that fans and media value offense as a much better barometer of a team than defense. the team played just as poorly yesterday as they did at buffalo, yet today everyone feels great about this being a moral victory, whereas after buffalo some people were saying we didn’t deserve to win. I for one thought buffalo was a great game, just as i thought yesterday was.
that being said, yesterday was undeniably more entertaining than buffalo
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 3:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think it was more entertaining than the Buffalo game because something different was going on. In that game, neither the offense nor defense were doing anything significant. The offenses weren’t moving the ball consistently to score, and whenever they did, they ended up getting field goals. Its important to note that the score was so low because the defenses were so stout, but because both teams suffer from inept offenses.
Yesterday was different because both teams showed their fans something they’re not used to; exciting football. Yes, both defenses were awful but seeing Stafford and Quinn toss the ball around was fun to watch. Cleveland got out to that 24-3 lead, Detroit came back. Then they were pretty even the rest of the way. It makes for good football when two of the league’s worst teams play the game of the week, if not year.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Nov 23, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldn’t argue with this at all, yesterday was certainly more entertaining, but was it really better football?
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
much better offense, due to much worse defense
by Dawg Nuts on Nov 23, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
right, which made it more entertaining, but its not like the team as a whole played better.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the issue is, if you look around the NFL, teams score points, even against some of the more highly touted defenses. Buffalo-Cleveland was not regarded as a clash between defensive titans; rather it was regarded — rightly so — as a match-up between teams of offensive ineptitude.
Now, that’s not to say good defense shouldn’t be recognized, but that’s certainly not how the game was perceived.
by Western Reserve on Nov 23, 2009 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
with buffalo… I really thought that people put too much emphasis on the QB’s final numbers… I thought that DA was not as bad as people here were calling him… there were a lot of drops that NFL recievers just cant make… DA needs to get into a rythmn and he could not do it when his guys were not catching the ball…
by thelonius7 on Nov 24, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree, people tend to forgive bad defense more easily than bad offense when in fact it good be good defense or special teams that is causing the low scores.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 23, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because the Winning QB was not 2-21?
by realmccoy on Nov 23, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats my point exactly though. yes the qb’s were terrible that game, but would you argue each team’s pass defense was less horrible on sunday?
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would counter that our defense was inconsistent in Detroit. Okay, more bad than good, but the Browns weren’t kicking onsides between their TDs in the first quarter, so the defense must have been doing something right there. They just failed to maintain it.
by JustBob on Nov 25, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’ll concede this game doesn’t make the perfect example for me, but lets say this game ended 50-47, then what?
and obviously the defenses were good for bits and pieces of the game, but there were 9 points scored in the buffalo game, and without looking it up i think there may have been a missed field goal, so in that game the offenses produced at times.
by notthatnoise on Nov 26, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You actually got a chance to see how good our defense would play when there not on the field the whole freakin quarter and with our offense giving the defense some rest and sadly they did bad. Aside from our offense doing good im so dissapointed in our defense, the same defense that shut down Flacco and Rice last week while having no to little rest in the first half of last weeks game.
by siejecy on Nov 23, 2009 6:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
you bring up a good point… it seems like the defense wears down in the second half of games… Sunday was different… it looked like detroit attacked the browns weakness… first making plays on an inexperienced lb corp… using the RB out of the backfield…… as cleveland adjusted… they were then able to use their strength at WR to make plays… im not so down on the defense.. certainly you would hope for better…
Even though they are distinct phases, its hard to think of the defensive play outside of the situation where it occurs. Usually, the Defense is trying to keep the game close, knowing that they have little margin for error. However, For the first time that i can remember, the browns had a big lead. The defensive insensity suffered in this scenario. What happened late in the first half was like a “run” in basketball…
Still, I must say that I am upset that Cleveland did not go after Stafford when they had a lead… that kid had way too much time to throw… the Game management still leaves a lot to be desired… The mistakes are certainly fewer… but this staff has yet to develop a killer instinct… (Obviously not surprising with 1 win on the season)…
by thelonius7 on Nov 24, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Key to success: Find a way to play Detroit’s defense every week.
by Simmsinns on Nov 23, 2009 7:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Next Week the Key
There are 2 key questions on Quinn -
1. Was this performance an indication that he has the talent to turn the corner?
2. Was this just a blip against a terrible secondary?
I do think there is a chance that Quinn can build on this success with a decent performance against the Bengals. Best wishes Brady – I had already assumed you were gone – and would be glad to eat crow this Thanksgiving.
by realmccoy on Nov 23, 2009 9:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i agree with this, i was ready to kick brady to the curb, but like you i will be glad to be proven wrong.
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen. I would just be tickled pink if Brady Quinn ends up not being a 1st round bust. Wouldn’t it be crazy with our track record of drafting horribly in the 1st round if for one year, we drafted TWO successful players in the first round?
by shep615 on Nov 24, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can agree with most of the assessments above. Quinn having time to throw is what makes me want to keep watching. I want to see Quinn improve in particular categories. He put some long balls right on the money this week. Checkmark for improvement.
He allowed plays to develop this week, not handicapping the vertical opportunities. Checkmark for improvement. Under pressure, he stood tall in the pocket and got rid of the ball, while still making a good decision… Ehhh. I want to see him improve more here. I think he really gets scared while in the pocket. If this area can improve, then I think he can be solid, assuming Sunday was not a one week thing.
These things have to happen consistently and consecutively. It cannot be flashes of brilliance. And as you could stil see on Sunday, the right side of that line needs and Extreme Makeover, not one consisting of Isaac Sowellsesque talent (or lace of).
Can any one Browns Employee be competent?
by Dawg26 on Nov 23, 2009 11:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the right side of the line is that terrible. are they pro-bowl calliber? no. but those guys are still starters on a lot of other teams.
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s had his moments this year, but he’s been mostly average.
by golanbatrac on Nov 24, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I don’t have a lot to complain about with the line to be honest. St. Clair has been the weak link, but for a cheap stop-gag he has been good enough. Steinbach has had a couple bad games, but overall has been solid.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 24, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The chance of having pro-bowl guys in every spot on the O-line is zero. The thing that seemed different to me was that Quinn was showing more poise in the pocket than ever before. He also used his legs to buy himself time. If you look at the TD to Gaines, Quinn was backpedaling with two guys in his face before he made the throw.
There is no doubt that there were more wide-open receivers than we’ve had this entire year and that gave BQ the confidence to take it down field. I enjoyed watching that game a lot and finally saw the spark I wanted to see out of Quinn. I calm my optimism by looking at Detroit’s miserable defensive stats. I tried to find any sign that they are better than they seem and there was none. So next week will be telling. I don’t expect the aerial circus we saw last week but if Quinn has half as good of a performance my right eyebrow will be raised.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Nov 24, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is what i thought more than anything. to me quinn seemed to have a much better pocket presence, he didn’t fold before anyone hit him, instead standing tall and delivering the football.
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The line in the next few years with a little FA or draft help could really be great. Thomas is ‘who we thought he was’ every year…Steinbach, like you says, fluctuates a bit but overall is just fine. Mack continues his development but has proven himself quite competent, and with some further development there’s no reason to think he won’t become good or potentially great…
I, like others, would still like to address the RT tackle position…with some off season moves it is quite possible for us conceivably in a few years to have 3 pro-bowl caliber Olineman…At Center and both tackle spots that sounds great.
by johnnyphoenix on Nov 25, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love Steinbach’s effort, but ultimately, we’re going to need a big body at LG to fit with the big bodies we’ve flanked the position with.
by golanbatrac on Nov 25, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
3 Offensive TDs Against Bengals
Would be enough for me to give some kudos to BQ and the coaching staff. I have given up on significant wins this year – so seeing some improvement week to week will make my Thanksgiving week.
by realmccoy on Nov 24, 2009 3:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My goal is to not pick number 1 overall.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 24, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree its usually not a great place to be, but in an uncapped year i wouldn’t complain.
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn’t the years after be capped though? It would be a temporary reprieve.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 24, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who is a capable number 1 pick anyways? What do we REALLY need? I hear some people saying go for a qb or go for a safety, such as Taylor Mays. I would be interested to hear what people think we really need and can get in this upcoming draft.
by siejecy on Nov 24, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we had the number 1 pick, I’d go for the closest thing to a sure thing in the draft regardless of position or where they’re projected to go.
I don’t think we should automatically rule out Okung just because we already have a Tackle. If he can play on the right side, I say go for it.
by golanbatrac on Nov 24, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Suh is probably the surest thing in my mind. He has Haynesworth potential.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 24, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, right now he looks like a no brainer.
by golanbatrac on Nov 24, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would bring Suh in for a few workouts though and try him at end and nose tackle. We could use someone who could play both.
by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 24, 2009 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m skeptical about drafting D-Lineman and pass rushers in the first round. Out of the pass 3 drafts the only ones to have fullfilled their first round expectations are Mario Williams and… thats mostly it. Orakpo just may change that
by Rocland on Nov 24, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sedrick Ellis is really good for the Saints.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 25, 2009 2:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2008 was an unusually weak year for defensive lineman. I’d say it is too soon to determine the fate of the 2009 class but Tyson Jackson, BJ Raji, and Orakpo all look promising.
That said, I would rather still go after the surefire prospect and not let positional history affect that. I do think Suh is an atypical prospect in that he is probably a lot safer than your normal college DT. I saw an article in ESPN magazine comparing his college stats to other great NFL DTs and he had the most impressive stats out of all of them.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 25, 2009 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
These are all the Dlineman and pass rushers taken in the first round since 2005
Holati Ngata
Kam Wimbley
Tamba Hali
John McCargo
Kiwanuka
Gaines Adams
Jammal Anderson
Mario Williams
Amobi OKoye
Adam Carriker
Jarvis Moss
Anthony Spencer
Chris Long
Glenn Dorsey
Vernon Gholston
Broderick Bunkley
Sedrick Ellis
Derrick Harvey
Lawerence Jackson
Ketwan Balmer
The bolded ones are the only players I wouldn’t consider massive flops. And I’m judging these on first rounder expectations, even though most of them would be considered massive flopped regardless of the round taken. If somone is taken in the first round and given 20m guaranteed you would expect more than just a position player right? Sedrick Ellis had a okay rookie campaign but has kinda fallen off since that why I don’t consider him elite.
This year’s draft was pretty bad also it seems. Jackson and Raji has done absolutely nothing for their teams, racking up only 20 tackles and 1 sack between the two of them. Orakpo does look decent and the other pass rushers besides Clay Mathews and Crushing from USC haven’t proven anything at all. But I’ll hold my verdict until next year.
Where am I going with all this? I don’t know…
But what i do know is that these two positions have given very little if anything at all the past 4 year in the first round. You say Suh seems safer than everyone else but remember….they said the exact same thing about Glenn Dorsey…The EXACT same thing, and now he’s sitting at KC with 8 tackles and no sacks on the year. I believe the flopping of these positions has more so to do with the unbelievably talented OLineman that have come out the past 4 years. The talent coming out of the draft haven’t been able to match the talent of the Jake Longs, Joe Thomas’s, Ryan Clady’s, Oher’s, Smith’s or any of the other dominant Tackles taken.
by Rocland on Nov 25, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okoye isn’t a flop just yet.
I’d think the number of ‘flops’ has more to do with the number of teams who are running the 3-4 now, than the quality of offensive linemen in recent years.
by golanbatrac on Nov 25, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Out of that list I would say the following are actually pretty good players:
Kiwanuka, Okoye (who is only like 21 at this point), Spencer, Long, Bunkley, and Ellis.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 25, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I don’t how anyone could call Kiwanuka a flop, and some of those guys are also good players. I don’t know about all of them, and you can’t judge a lineman just by looking at tackles and sacks, but there are some good players on that list. Just because a guy isn’t a big star doesn’t mean he’s a flop.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 25, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would expect someone taken in the first round to be an impact player. I would expect them to maybe not make the pro-bowl every year but at least justify their extremely high salary cap. They wouldn’t have to be stars, but at least play like one. Most of those players are not simple “not stars”, but most are flat out worthless to their teams. If your first rounder can be replaced talent wise by a 5th rounder, then there is a problem IMO
by Rocland on Nov 25, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with a DT though, is that by nature of the position they don’t have as much impact in terms of game-changing plays, but are incredibly important when it comes to containing the run. A very underrated position because it is not glamorous, but also extremely important to have for the defense.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 25, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re absolutely right. But there is still a difference between a top flight DT and a position player. For example Vince Wilfork doesn’t put up huge numbers but his presence is felt up the middle. Same for Ngata. But top flight DT’s can still be expected to put up great numbers though. I don’t feel like someone should not expect Shawn Roger’s type numbers from a top 10 pick who you’re paying 25m guaranteed. If you can’t expect Marcus Stroud type players in the first round then where can you expect to find them, you know?
by Rocland on Nov 25, 2009 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but I suppose you find them in the area where Stroud and Haynesworth were selected (top 10) or maybe in the Hampton, Shaun Rogers area at worst.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 25, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kiwanuka very well may not be a flop since he’s usually rotated in and not starting, so I’ll give you that. But Long isn’t hasn’t done much so far. I’m actually having a discussion at work with someone from STL and he agrees. Bunkley is simply a position player, Ellis has kinda fallen off and I don’t know why everyone gives Okoye a pass so much. He may be only 21 but he was still taken top 10 and its been 3 years. I also think Spencer is pretty average most of the time. So 3 or 4 maybe’s out of dozens still seem pretty terrible to me
by Rocland on Nov 25, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Amobi OKoye has done pretty good, and he is only 21 years old.
by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 29, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Taylor Mays is not a top 10 pick. Eric Berry is the best safety coming out of college and he’ll be a very high pick.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 24, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
God I’d love Eric Berry. Being the best defensive player in the SEC as a young, athletic safety is amazing.
by joeee on Nov 25, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure why fans would not want the number 1 pick. It gives your team the “pick of the litter” as it were and how is that bad? It also means that you have better picks all down the line by picking 1st in the second round, etc. I know that there are financial concerns but that is Lerner’s problem. Heck, with the lack of talent on this team I’m thinking even a capped year wouldn’t be a bad thing as few if any of these guys are going to be able to ask for or deserve big money in free agency. As a fan I want us to have the highest pick possible and I want the team to use it to pick the best guys to fill our greatest needs.
If you look at last year, having even one higher pick would have probably resulted in a much different draft. I’m thinking we would have taken Aaron Curry and I think that would have been a pretty good thing. I know there are high-pick busts but in general I think higher is better.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Nov 25, 2009 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The financial concerns are more related to salary cap than Randy Lerner. While next year looks like it will be uncapped, that will not always be the case. The amount of guaranteed money that goes to the #1 overall pick can be cap crippling if the player doesn’t pan out.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 25, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess you can look at it as risk/reward. If you look at the “relative valuation” charts online in which the picks are valued relative to each other, they go up exponentially as you get towards the top of the draft. So the difference between the #1 and #2 picks is “valued” much greater than the difference between the #2 and #3 picks. This seems to carry over to salary too. So then it kind of comes down to individuals in the draft (how sure can you be about their impact) and your team needs (how big of an upgrade is this player in his position on this team). That is all extremely subjective. But all-in-all I think it is better (and I am saying this as a fan, not an owner) to have more choices and that means a higher pick.
I can see the other side of this too and coupled with the tendency for teams to NOT trade up to the very high picks, there is some risk in having the higher picks in the draft. So is the risk greater than the potential reward? Hard to say. Here is a question though… do you think more teams might be willing to trade up this year because of the number of them fighting for their franchises? I don’t think I can remember a time in which there were more teams having trouble filling their stadiums and are thereby contemplating moves than right now. Could a great draft hope in the form of a Sam Bradford or other big name generate enough interest in a team to help them hang on for another year or two? So is there a chance that some of these teams (Rams, Jacksonville come immediately to mind) might be interested in trading up to #1 or #2 to the Browns benefit?
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Nov 25, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jacksonville will move up to nab Tebow if they have to. Lucky for them, he should be available no matter where they pick.
by golanbatrac on Nov 25, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they don’t have to move up, thats the thing. If they’re smart they’ll just wait until the third or second round. Hell he might be there till the 5th if he keeps up with his bad fundamentals
by Rocland on Nov 25, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jacksonville doesn’t have a 2nd.
by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 29, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would go off of the historical evidence we have in trades for the number 1 pick. The only 2 that I can think of off of the top of my head were fairly unique situations.
Eli Manning essentially demanded a trade prior to being selected and likely would not have been traded if he didn’t force his way out of San Diego.
The other trade I can think of was for Michael Vick who had the kind of speed at QB that had never been seen before. If you remember him out of college, he was throwing rocket passes and was an extremely desireable player to target that a fanbase could get behind. Therefore, I think that unless there is that kind of marquee player available, you are basically stuck with the number 1 overall.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 25, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think the saints also traded into the #1 slot to grab ricky williams, but i’m not sure
by notthatnoise on Nov 25, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They traded up, but to #5. Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, and Edgerin James were already off the board.
by golanbatrac on Nov 25, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
/punches Art Modell in the face . . . just for the hell of it.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 25, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok thanks i wasn’t sure if ricky was the draft after that or not. as a ten year old i didn’t care much about the draft :P
by notthatnoise on Nov 26, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
quinn really didnt do anything
he faced a defense that finished 32nd in 2007, 2008 & is 32nd right now. Big whoop. He put up good numbers LY vs DEN but they were atrocious. CIN has very good CB’s right now & its going to be a tough week.
by sleepy042 on Nov 24, 2009 4:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it’s fair to say he didn’t do anything… He did throw 4 TDs, which is doing something because that like… Doubled our TD total dating back to around week 10 or something of last year. It may not look like he did a lot statistically considering he was playing Detroit, but I think the game will help to boost his confidence and the rest of the offense’s confidence in the fact that yes, they CAN actually score more than 9 points in a game. It may not look like it means much, but it’ll provide a foundation that Quinn can build on.
I agree with basically everyone else in this thread, though. In the grand scheme of things, the game against Detroit isn’t enough to build the fans’ (or my) confidence in Quinn very much. I’ll start gaining confidence if he starts to perform against better teams too.
by shep615 on Nov 24, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, cincinnati has such great CB’s that they gave up 20-something points to DA…
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cinncy has the 10th rated defense in the NFL. Just sayin’.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 25, 2009 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m not disputing they have a good defense, i just find it odd that many people seem to think they have some amazing shut-down D this year when, as we saw in the first bengals game, they clearly do not. i wouldn’t be surprised at all if quinn had a decent game. i would be surprised with another game like last week, but not by a decent game.
by notthatnoise on Nov 25, 2009 8:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that Bengals defense is nasty. It won’t be like Detroit. If the entire offense brings there game on sunday and scores half that many points against Cincinnai it will be a big milestone in the Quinn dynasty.
by mapt351 on Nov 24, 2009 5:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
the bengals D is so nasty that the browns offense under DA put up over 20
by notthatnoise on Nov 24, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
im really not worried about there corners because i really dont think there that great. Im mainly worried about there d-line and linebackers. They know how to put pressure on the QB hence the Cin and Pitt game the week b4. They put tons of constant pressure on Ben which lead to him making rushed and bad passes which practically lead to the Bengals cb’s licking there chops.
by siejecy on Nov 24, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they’re
their
there
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 25, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Slow down playboy.
According to this drive chart on ESPN, 3 of the Browns 4 scoring drives were started inside the Bengals 38 yard line.
If Brady goes Bananananananas again, it will be legit.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 25, 2009 2:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
how many other times under DA did the browns go 38 yards?
by notthatnoise on Nov 25, 2009 8:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
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
Browns Links
Browns News/Information
Pro Football Critics
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Blogs
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities
The Watercooler
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Waiting for Next Year
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.
