Cleveland Browns All-Decade Team: Vote on the Quarterbacks
One of the popular themes going around as the year 2010 approaches is the creation of "all-decade lists." Rather than just creating a list myself, I'm going to allow the Dawgs By Nature community decide who should be on the Browns all-decade team. When all of the positions are voted for, I will post the compiled list along with my own comments of who I would've selected.
Today, we start with the quarterback position, which I've narrowed down to five candidates. For all positions, the candidates will be listed roughly in chronological order. Also, I've made it that in order to be considered, the player must have accrued at least 16 games (a full season's) worth of playing time. That's why someone like Brady Quinn is not on this list as a candidate, but if you are vehemently opposed to such a thing, explain why in the comments section.
Quarterbacks
1. TIM COUCH (2000-2004)
After being taken with the first pick of the 1999 draft, Couch was the Browns' starting quarterback for a good portion of the first half of the decade. Overall, he received more playing time than any other Browns quarterback of the decade. His statistics were average for a first-round pick -- he threw for 49 touchdowns and 54 interceptions.
The thing I loved about Couch was his ability to lead a comeback. Case in point -- during the Browns only playoff season since returning to the league, the team was down 17-14 to Jacksonville in Week 14 of the 2002 season. With only 1:25 left to play, Couch was intercepted and the Jaguars tacked on another field goal. Couch got a chance at a Hail Mary and delivered it to Quincy Morgan as time expired. Two games later, Couch, on the road against the Ravens, engineered a 92-yard drive and threw a 1-yard touchdown pass to Mark Campbell with 29 seconds remaining. The Browns won 14-13. Earlier in that season, Couch had tremendous comebacks against the Titans and the Jets as well.
Couch accomplished what he did with a decent ensemble cast, but no real stars or an offensive line surrounding him. The negative moment in his career came when fans were getting more excited to see Kelly Holcomb at quarterback instead. After getting injured against the Ravens on October 6, 2002, it appeared as though some fans were cheering that he was injured. After the game, Couch was emotionally upset and lashed out at the reaction of the fans.
2. KELLY HOLCOMB (2001-2004)
Here's the man who inadvertently led to (partially) the downfall of Couch's reign in Cleveland. Holcomb was known for his ability to step into a situation and light it up. When I say "light it up," I really mean it -- he didn't just put up ordinary numbers. Take a look at two of his most memorable games.
First, during the 2002 campaign, he started the opener against the Chiefs (the Dwayne Rudd game). In that game, Holcomb threw for 326 yards and 3 touchdowns in a 40-39 loss. He fought hard in the playoff game against the Steelers too, another spot start, when he threw for 429 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 1 interception.
When given the opportunity to start over Couch the following season though, Holcomb fell flat. He had zero spark in his first two games, and suffered an injury after the third game (a contest in which he came from behind to win). Besides one blowout game against the Arizona Cardinals, Holcomb never really proved he was anything more than a veteran backup quarterback.
Holcomb did have one more "spot start" type of success -- the 58-48 shootout loss to the Cincinnati Bengals in 2004, a game in which he threw for 413 yards, 5 touchdowns, and 2 interceptions.
3. CHARLIE FRYE (2005-2007)
Expectations were probably set a little too high for the third-round quarterback, and it showed on the field with Frye's poor touchdown (14) to interception (23) ratio. The thing that separates Frye from the other quarterbacks we've had was his mobility. In 21 games, Frye rushed for 276 yards and four touchdowns. Those aren't Michael Vick numbers, but they were certainly Frye's best asset.
Frye should've used that asset more often to assist him in the passing game. I still have to believe the coaching staff instructed Frye to be a pocket passer, because as effective as Frye was when rolling out, he hardly did it towards the end of his career with the Browns. Maybe the coaches just didn't want him to roll out to the sideline and then throw the ball back toward the middle of the field idiotically.
For those who aren't aware, Frye will be starting for the Oakland Raiders this week.
4. DEREK ANDERSON (2006-2009)

That's right -- we're already at our final quarterback, Derek Anderson. There clearly aren't any Peyton Manning's to choose from on this list.
It's really kind of tough to decide how Anderson should be ranked in terms of making the all-decade team. One one hand, he by far had the best single season of any Browns quarterback in the decade back in 2007, when he threw for 3,787 yards, 29 touchdowns, and 19 interceptions en route to a Pro Bowl.
Even during that good season though, the bad decisions were still always evident. His completion percentage is below 60 percent, and he doesn't have any touch on his throws. When expectations were high in 2008, Anderson laid an egg besides the memorable Monday Nighter against the defending Super Bowl Champion New York Giants. This season, it's unfathomable to believe Anderson was ever given the distinguished notation of a Pro Bowler, since his completion percentage in 6 games is a mere 42.9% to go along with 2 touchdowns and 9 interceptions.
Was Anderson's one "wowing" season good enough to overcome the other ones?
COMPARABLE STATISTICS
|
Quarterback
|
Games | Comp % | Yards | TD | INT |
| Tim Couch | 47 | 60.98% | 8,684 | 49 | 54 |
| Kelly Holcomb* | 24 | 63.45% | 3,867 | 29 | 22 |
| Charlie Frye | 21 | 62.54% | 3,490 | 14 | 23 |
| Derek Anderson | 37 | 52.91% | 6,876 | 45 | 44 |
*Includes playoff game against the Steelers.
OTHER QUARTERBACKS
These quarterbacks played for the Browns during the decade but are not up for consideration in the poll due to their lack of tenure with the team. If you'd still like to comment on them, or if you believe one of them should be the all-decade quarterback instead, sound off in the comments section. (Note: I am not listing quarterbacks with less than three games played).
- Doug Pederson (2000, 11 games)
- Luke McCown (2004, 5 games)
- Jeff Garcia (2004, 11 games)
- Trent Dilfer (2005, 11 games)
- Ken Dorsey (2006-2008, 5 games)
- Brady Quinn (2007-2009, 13 games)
DECISION TIME
Now it's time to cast your vote in the poll below, and then go ahead and explain your choice in the comments section. The next position we'll do is running back, but save the discussion on that position for a later date.
Please be aware that the considerations do not include the 1999 comeback season.
0 recs |
48 comments
|
Comments
Wow, do I have to vote on this one? I went with Holcomb because he played well enough to actually win us a playoff game. No other reason
Yeah, it was kind of depressing writing this article. That does make me more curious though as to how the results of the poll turn out (since there is no clear-cut winner). Timely response too from you — I didn’t expect a comment from someone just three minutes after my posting ;)
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 19, 2009 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
If Bernie19Kosar’s flashback posts are a reflection on the “good times,” then a lot of these all-decade posts will be of the opposite type. But, I only have the opportunity to do an all-decade thingy once every ten years.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 19, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions
while its true its not his fault they lost, i have a problem with that phrase in general. if he had played well enough to win, they would have won. conversely, derek anderson played well enough to win when he went 2-17.
Kelly holcomb had a few great relief appearances and an amazing playoff start, but in my mind one good start doesn’t outweigh the fact that couch led those comebacks to get the browns into the playoffs in the first place.
by notthatnoise on Dec 19, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
I am not really arguing that Holcomb was better than Couch, just that I didn’t like any of the options and that one singular Holcomb moment was why I voted for him.
ok, i’m totally ok with that, as that was probably the high point of this franchise since ’99 (sadly)
by notthatnoise on Dec 19, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions
if he had played well enough to win, they would have won
That makes absolutely no sense. Football is a team game — a quarterback can play great and his team can still lose, just like a quarterback can play terrible and his team can still win. I thought we were past the point of judging a QB’s performancy by whether or not his team won the game.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 19, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions
I was tempted to go with Frye, now that he’s better than Jamarcus Russell, but went with Couch instead.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Me too, being an Akron Grad i really wanted to see Frye succeed but what can you say.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 19, 2009 5:00 AM EST up reply actions
Man,our QBs have really been bad. I almost found myself voting for Couch and then remembered that at the time I liked Holcomb better, but it always seemed obvious that he was going to turn out to be fools gold (the original DA?). The other choices?
So let’s see. . . the winner is. Well I don’t know who wins but I know the loser has to be the Cleveland Browns.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
Tim Couch – he had okay numbers with below average to poor players surrounding him. i feel like he might have been really good had he come into an even somewhat established team. not to mention, i remember some good feelings with him because he had a couple of wins against the steelers. that’s more than any of the others.
I went with Couch, because he actually led the Browns to the playoffs, if not for his broken leg, who knows what coulda been. He also did this with no real talent around him. I really think he could have been special if he would have had a good supporting cast. I always liked him and thought he got a bad deal.
Couch by a landslide. He was a solid NFL starter for 40+ games during the 00’s. Nobody else lasted long enough to be considered. Holcomb and Anderson might have had higher peaks, but they were way too short.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
this was my opinion as well. holcomb’s peak wasn’t even as long as anderson’s, at least couch was a serviceable starter for 4 seasons.
by notthatnoise on Dec 19, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
Ouch. I’m taking some Pepto-Bismol and abstaining. There’s always next decade.
"Everybody loves progress but not a lot of people love change." - E. Mangini, 12/11/2009
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 19, 2009 1:27 PM EST reply actions
At first I thought this was voting for the decade’s worst QB. Ouch.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 19, 2009 2:35 PM EST reply actions
He didn’t play 16 games for the Browns.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 20, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
And, if he means “why wasn’t he listed in the other quarterbacks section,” then this is why:
(Note: I am not listing quarterbacks with less than three games played).
Gradkowski played in two games with the Browns.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 20, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Did you change that? I was sure it was 16 when I read the post…?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
It’s 16 for the four quarterbacks in the poll (Couch et al), but it’s 3 for the other quarterbacks (Dorsey et al).
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 20, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
I voted for Holcomb. Honestly, I wasn’t into football much when either of them played. I just voted based on the info given.
I wish we could just find out franchise QB, and I’m hoping it’s the one who’s starting the games now.
In the newest mock drafts, many are saying Suh—> TB, Clausen—> STL, Berry—> CLE. I still think Berry is a great choice. We need someone like that. (Yeah, that was random but I didn’t know where else to post it.)
This is the most pathetic poll I have ever voted in.
by Just1BannerPlz on Dec 20, 2009 12:24 PM EST reply actions
I voted for Couch, though Holcomb seemed to have better stats in the areas listed I never really liked him, and Couch would have been really good with at least a decent line, let alone receivers and running backs.
The sporting gods hate Cleveland, they give us false hopes, then yank it out from under us like a tablecloth.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 20, 2009 2:53 PM EST reply actions
lol Spergon fucking WYNN.
(shakes head and sighs…followed by facepalm)
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 21, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
1999, right?
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 21, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

by 
























