Ummm...What? Brady Quinn Placed on Injured Reserve; Derek Anderson to Start
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 22, 2009 11:17 AM EST
in General News
369 comments
Recent Events
- Browns beat the Steelers.
- The offense starts looking better.
- Joshua Cribbs and Jerome Harrison are record setters.
- The Browns surpass Peter King's 2-14 projection.
- Mike Holmgren is brought on board.
- Derek Anderson is the starting quarterback again. WHAT!?!
After winning two straight games and getting some fans excited again, it was announced today that QB Brady Quinn has been placed on the injured reserve. Apparently, he suffered some form of a foot injury against the Kansas City Chiefs. It sounds like had there been more games left, Quinn might have been able to come back still.
Browns head coach Eric Mangini said Quinn suffered a foot injury on his final carry of Sunday's win in Kansas City, an 11-yard run that converted a key first down.
"He won't be able to play the next two weeks," Mangini said. "It's hard to tell exactly what happened. Even Brady isn't sure exactly what happened."
Who starts the final two home games now? That would be Derek Anderson, who had one of the worst stretches imaginable for a quarterback earlier this season. If fans were considering buying tickets for Christmas gifts, I bet they'll start reconsidering now.
Talk about a killjoy.
0 recs |
369 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
BQ
So Brady has lost his chance to prove himself further . . . does Homlgren draft Clausen in April?
Nick
by nick_willis on Dec 22, 2009 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
eeek no QB in the first 2 rounds plz
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2nd round might be ok, depending on who it is
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no – no QB the first two rounds. We have too many other holes. Please no QB!
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Dec 22, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think you take best player available that high, and if thats a QB, fine. why are you so dead set against drafting a QB? do you really think we’ve seen enough to say that quinn is the answer.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Clausen will be taken by the Rams. They need a QB, and already passed on Ryan and Sanchez the past two years. The Rams will definitely have their first round pick before us.
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have family in STL, and the consensus in the city is that the Rams will not draft a QB, and potentially pursue Vick.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, man… I do not want Clausen at all.
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think first pick will end up being Suh no matter which team gets it.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a lot can happen between now and the draft: specifically, bowl game performances and combine workouts both being blown out of proportion.
i’m not sure he’s the automatic #1 pick, but I don’t see him falling past TB which does us no good under the current draft order.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there is still a lot of time in between now and the draft. There is a lot of hype surrounding suh but it could easily die down. I know I was a little hyped about him but he did disappear in a lot of his games and like Kiper said, there is no way in hell he’ll be as dominant in the NFL as he was in those few games in college.
But still with that said STL are throwing games so they’re after someone. And tampa isn’t going after a QB so they much be after suh
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, if radio/talk show buzz means anything it will be Suh. I am in STL right now, and every radio program is dedicated to Suh talk and asking experts on how he will turn out in the NFL.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The browns will probably be out of the running for Berry too, since we’re now tied with KC and they hold the tie breaker against us. I’m willing to bet that Pioli goes after Berry and if Earl Thomas stays in college I would say for the most part we’re screwed if we don’t trade out of the 5th
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know everyone wants to trade down again but that’s very, very hard to do. We were lucky that the Jets wanted Sanchez in the last draft and were able to make that trade, but it’s very unlikely that it happens again.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
since we’re now tied with KC and they hold the tie breaker against us
no they don’t. the team with the weaker SOS picks first, and according to PlayoffStatus.com (the only place I could find SOS rankings), the Browns have the 2nd weakest SOS in the AFC.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, as of right now we would have 3rd pick I believe.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well that definitely change from last week:|
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still willing to bet STL and TB go defensive;1. Suh 2. Berry. Unless TB go Okung
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TB could go for McCoy as well. /hoping
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
seriously… all it will take is for McCoy to have a monstrous workout and the debate between the two begins.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not disagreeing with you, but has anyone watched OU?
Of the games I have seen (6 or so) McCoy is a complete non-factor. I have never seen him “take over” a game or just become unblockable.
Am I missing something or is everyone just expecting the breakout? Dude looks like Ryan Sims 2.0 to me.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ive seen Okung linked to TB in early mock drafts.
by holmes213 on Dec 22, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All I know is that guys like McShay had him ranked ahead of Suh for awhile during the season. I did not watch Oklahoma once this season.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I follow the Sooners, watched about 5 of there games this year. McCoy is overrated. He is second round material. The Sooners have good athletes but some times does not equate to football players. Teddy Lehman, Rocky Calmus, Malcom Kelly, Davin Joesph, Dan Cody, to name a few. They have good success but its 50/50 with there players.
McCoy is hyped IMO.
by Grockcubs on Dec 22, 2009 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I think Detroit only has 2 wins…meaning we are 4th pick right now. Detroit took a safety in Delmas last year, but it’s not unreasonable that they could go safety again.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot all about Detroit. If they can go WR 4 out of 5 years they could go high pick safety 2 years in a row:|
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it could still change, so it’s worth keeping an eye on.
even better, the site tracks the projected draft order itself and gives percentages for where each team will pick. looks to be updated daily, other than the ironic byline regarding the “Reggie Bush sweepstakes”.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
for those not interested in clicking, the Browns should be drafting between 3 and 6 with 90% confidence.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Chiefs go after Okung
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw this on SC just now. I was in shock and awe and almost started to cry.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sports Center should have had Buzz Killington explain this news:
by Simmsinns on Dec 22, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
lol they must be going after someone in the draft.
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ha, typical Clevelandness. Things start looking up (albeit it, just slightly) and we get slapped in the face. Just when I was getting excited about the upcoming game against the Raiders.
Over/under on Anderson INTs: 3
by sidehacker on Dec 22, 2009 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I will see your 3 and raise you one.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see 2, but he will not be able to complete anything. Is this a real injury or is he getting too close to 70% of the snaps? Also, this could be a ploy to get Anderson a better trade value.
I was just being cynical, I don’t think anyone would lie like that, especially after winning 2 straight.
by holmes213 on Dec 22, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Positive: Al Davis gets an in – game look of his next year starter.
Negative: DA has to start for us now.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Anderson was ahead of both Gradkowski and Frye on the depth chart….
by danvail on Dec 22, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
actually he was never ahead of Frye, seeing as how he was back-up and then Frye was shipped to Seattle.
by holmes213 on Dec 22, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that’s a valid technicality. Leave us to our fun thinking about the Raiders’ future positional battle of Frye vs Gradkowski vs Anderson.
by danvail on Dec 22, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They’re just saving Quinn for next year. Smart move. Not good for anybody that has a stake in the game like myself (bet $20 they would win 2/3 of last 3), but better to have a healthy, positive QB for next season. Just like, in retrospect, sitting Quinn after 2-1/2 games, until the rest of the team was more prepared, probably made sense. Trust the process if you want to build a good team.
by JDawg62 on Dec 22, 2009 11:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
wow that is some optimism there! salute you on that or is it sarcasm…..all these brownie the elves.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
aiiiiieeee say bye bye to 5-11 say it aint so….wait….where is Ratliff?!?! Bring out the Rat!
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not sarcasm – I’m drinking the kool-aid.
by JDawg62 on Dec 22, 2009 11:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Drink the reply button kool – aid, please
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this may be good. If DA plays well these last two games we’ll be worth more if we try to ship him in the off season to a team looking for a short term starter in order to nurture a rookie for a year.
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 11:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
True, and if we lose maybe we are in the Suh sweepstakes?
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We’re done for with Suh. STL intentionally blew their game for a reason so they’re vying for positions to grab someone. The only team ahead of them was TB who obviously aren’t going after a QB in the draft so that leaves Suh
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
:(
A Great post bout recent drafts by losing franchises…interesting…off subject I know
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/12/16/1197379/historical-draft-reactions-of
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hate to say it, but I’d like to see the Browns trade down again a few spots. Rolando Mclain sounds like a future leader on D. Or the best leader for the secondary. That’s what sucked about last years draft, passing up on Mathews, Mualuga, Laurinitis. We need a smart leader for the defense.
by JDawg62 on Dec 22, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
honestly, i think the worst possible thing right now wouldn’t be DA playing poorly, it would be DA playing well enough so that holmgren considers keeping him for next year…
by sww2109 on Dec 22, 2009 11:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think DA’s gone either way. If he plays well, that just increases his trade value… if he even has any.
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This just in:
He doesn’t.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon!
by Andrew Tolliver on Dec 22, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He did play well once. He needs the playbook around him and the talent at receiver, no drops, and he will be good agian.
by holmes213 on Dec 22, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re banking on a lot. I appreciate the enthusiasm though.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon!
by Andrew Tolliver on Dec 22, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like it. I hope he does well. I hope he does well enough, because that will make him more attractive to the likes of Oakland who has some decent pieces in place and a fast WR in Heyward-Bey. Crazy Al might like to have a big arm throwing deep to Heyward-Bey in the future, and if DA does well, that might increase the chances of getting something out of him.
I think Quinn has been impressive over the course of the past few games, enough so that he has earned another go-around with all the 1st team pre-season reps with whoever Holmgren can bring in. Plus Quinn seems to have the tools to work with what we have. I think Holmgren would be smart to stay with the direction we’re headed on offense (ball control, from what I understand) and add/keep the people to complement it.
by shep615 on Dec 22, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“I think Quinn has been impressive over the course of the past few games,”
Ummm the Steeler game and the KC game he has been awful.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 7:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t like playing for draft picks, I think it ’s usually better to try to win every game. But if the opportunity presents itself … I think the powers that be believe by now that Quinn has a better possible future than Anderson. We can see it, other teams fans can see it, Stevie Wonder could see it.
by JDawg62 on Dec 22, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stevie Wonder could see it.
I’ve never tried so hard to hold in a laugh.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon!
by Andrew Tolliver on Dec 22, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks – ten years of the Browns forces a sense of humor. How do you call up a quote box?
by JDawg62 on Dec 22, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Highlight the line and click the blue quotations beside the strikethrough option.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or type bq. exactly like that then paste whatever you wanted to quote.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon!
by Andrew Tolliver on Dec 22, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, knowing the Brown’s luck DA will play two great games and create another stupid quarterback controversy the benefits no one.
by BiggieBrown on Dec 22, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Reminds me of the 4 QB 1988 season
Remember when Kosar got hurt then Gary Danielson got hurt then they signed Don “Freakin” Strock and he got hurt and they had to make do with Mike Pagel?
So it could be worse. Think Brian Griese can still throw???? LOL
Doug B
by cadfile on Dec 22, 2009 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
not sure how that 88 season applies here since we only have had 2 QBs take snaps this year. Maybe this post is delayed from last December when we started Dorsey and Gradowski the last 4 weeks of the season?
by talonk on Dec 22, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that kinda happened again last year right? when we were down to Dorsey & Grakowski (w/e)
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don “Freakin” Strock won both games he started for us that year.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So it could be worse
But we were actually a good team then. And fun to watch.
by APV on Dec 22, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you look at the highlights from the game you can see Quinn oull up lame at the end of that run. He does a little stutter-slide step as he runs out of bounds.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Quinn play starts at the 2:35 mark:
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah!!!
The Browns have gotten two wins and yes one was against a good team and the other well equal?? But lets face it Brady Quinn is horrible and did not contribute but one run to the browns! 2 more interceptions, 66 yds and a 27 qb rating is pathetic. People need to wake up and swallow the pill about Quinn!! Weak arm, inaccurate has hell and hurt again, last year it was his pinky what is it now a bunyon?? At least we have a chance to complete the deep throws to wide open receivers and allow more room for harrison!!
by mooredaddy on Dec 22, 2009 12:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
wait …we have wide open receivers?
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Make sure they are Browns
DA needs to throw to the “wide open” Browns WR not the other team
Doug B
by cadfile on Dec 22, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Rec’d for truth.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DA needs to throw to the "wide open" Browns WR
If you what you mean by “wide open Browns WR” is the opposing teams LB’s chest from 10 yards away then we should be just fine.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 22, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm... Why will no one suggest putting in Cribbs?
Cribbs is going to sign an extension with the Browns now anyways, why not use him as QB? I know, he may not have the best pass decision making at the position, but as the every down QB he could really, really be devastating during wildcat plays. That should open up the passing lanes for him too.
by IBHMC on Dec 22, 2009 12:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like him more as a kick returner and as an option in the offense.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely think he should continue taking kick returns. However, even at his to be renegotiated salary, he is going to be much cheaper to retain than a starting QB taken in the first round of the draft. Clearly one wouldn’t run the wildcat with Cribbs every time, but having a Vick type presence at QB could really help our already struggling defense. The Browns are looking for ways to display Cribb’s athleticism; why not allow him more control over the offense?
by IBHMC on Dec 22, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He needs to rest a bit if he’s going to continue to be effective in the return game.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
because he probably hasn’t practiced a whole lot of plays that don’t involve him running
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cribbs is an athletic guy. He played QB for Kent State for years. He knows how to play the position, even if he isn’t as refined at passing as an NFL QB should be. I’m just saying because of a constant wildcat threat, defenses can not double team any WR without the threat of Cribbs running and gaining 5+ yards each time.
by IBHMC on Dec 22, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then we could hire Bobby Douglas as QB coach! ….
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 22, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he also wasn’t that great of a QB hence the undrafted FA section in his resumé. im from Akron i watched him play a few games he just liked to run alot, his passes were hit or miss, he was good enough for the lower divisions but any higher and he might not of even got to start at that position. also i’d like to be clear that im not trying to tear him down he’s probably my favoite player in all the NFL ‘because’ of his versatility
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there is no Wildcat threat in the Browns offense; i don’t believe they’ve ran it once this year.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
??
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 22, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What the Browns run is not a True Wildcat. It is not from a power running style, and Cribbs has QB background. also, he should be sweeping for a reverse as a WR. it is not a Wildcat.
by holmes213 on Dec 22, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m taking a stand.
Call it the “Flash” package if you want. The Wildcat is a distinct formation/play where a halfback moves in motion in front of the player taking the snap, and the player taking the snap has 4 different options on the play.
What the Browns run is a simple direct snap play with a non-QB taking the snap.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is sort of like saying band-aid is only a company that makes bandages. everyone refers to bandages as band-aids. yes this isn’t technically the wildcat, but come on, you’re being a little too literal.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you: “how’s that lemon you’re eating?”
me: “it’s not a lemon… it’s an orange.”
you: “it’s a round, citrus fruit.”
me: “yes, this is all true, but the two are still distinctly different and go by different names.”
you: “lemon, orange, whatever, you’re taking it too literally.”
point being… Band-aids are bandages, Kleenex are tissues, and that’s fine. but i’m not going to refer to a true wildcat formations as simply a “play action pass”, nor would I refer to a direct snap run as a Wildcat play.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you: whats that you’re using to wipe your nose?
me: its a kleenex
you: the box says its a generic brand
me: whatever, you know what i meant
Wildcat originated with miami running a package with ronnie brown getting direct snaps. Wildcat as it is commonly used refers to any package with a non-QB taking direct snaps with the option to run or pass on any particular play. what you’re arguing is akin to saying any formation without a tight end isn’t an I-formation or it isn’t shotgun unless there are two running backs in the backfield.
you’re being way too narrow with your definition of wildcat, every announcer and analyst refers to what the browns and other teams do as a type of wildcat package. where are you getting your definition from?
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
every announcer and analyst refers to what the browns and other teams do as a type of wildcat package.
that’s exactly my problem.
want to know where i get my definition from? how about Arkansas’s OC David Lee, which is who the Miami Dolphins took it from.
here’s an article from FO that describes Wildcat plays.
watch all the plays in motion here.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we know that announcers never get anything wrong. . . .
I find it very funny that someone who is always railing against the media is now using them to defend his argument.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad my post about Cribbs started a discussion about what the Wildcat really is. Maybe I can talk about DA’s passes next week and start a thread about the definition of the Hail Mary! LOL
by IBHMC on Dec 22, 2009 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I can talk about DA’s passes next week and start a thread about the definition of the Hail Mary!
In a thread about DA’s passes, any other topic will start sounding a lot better.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 2:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m always railing against the media’s treatment of non-issues, not necessarily their knowledge of football. If herm edwards and bill cowher refer to it as wildcat thats what i’ll call it too.
I agree you’re technically right. the wildcat is technically what you say it is, and nothing else. but through common usage the word has taken on a larger meaning, the word “wildcat” has come to mean more than the specific play you mentioned.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 8:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, it was rolub who was defining the wildcat, not me. Secondly, plenty of announcers make football mistakes all the time (usually the play-by-play guys, not analysts, though). Most announcers don’t know the difference between an end around and a reverse, which is basic football (and I’ve even heard analysts do it). That one in particular really annoys me. So I don’t think going by what announcers call it is a good argument.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think taking half of my argument is a good argument:
every announcer and analyst refers to what the browns and other teams do as a type of wildcat package
For me this is sort of like the word “irregardless.” its not technically right, but so many people use it that it has become right. I know rolub is right in his definition, i just don’t think its worth getting worked up over.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not getting worked up over it. I was only responding to your using announcers as justification for the term because of how you usually whine about the media. I never said anything about the use of the term wildcat.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, at least we know for absolutely sure that Quinn won’t meet the snaps target to meet his bonus.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 22, 2009 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will echo a few comments I saw above, Anderson has 0 trade value. He is making I think 7 million in base salary and currently has a QB rating under 40.
Quinn will get another shot next year, it doesn’t sound like this injury is particularly serious. I don’t think this changes whether we draft a QB in the first round or not, unless Holmgren was going to do that anyway. As woodsmeister said above, Quinn definitely can’t reach his performance bonuses now, which I consider a good thing since he still hasn’t even really reached average QB play.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 12:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
that may be what it boils down to. The fact that Quinn still has been playing like crap and he could have possibly made the performance goals in the last 2 games. But its not too damaging when I think about it, Quinn has what….160 yards in his last 3 games? DA couldn’t do too much worst.
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DA couldn’t do too much worst.
I guess you haven’t seen DA play this season?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think there is a high likelihood that Holmgren builds offense before defense on the team either through the draft or free agency. He has a very high QB focus (which I like) and likes a balanced run/pass approach which means he’ll also prioritize a premiere running back. I’d not be surprised at all to see a QB or RB as the Browns first pick in 2010.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For RB, I’d love to get Spiller, but taking him with the 3rd or 4th pick won’t happen. I still think our 1st round pick should be Berry.
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think 3rd or 4th is too high or too low for Spiller? I was thinking maybe Javid Best as our pick in the 2nd round. I think he has the explosiveness of Spiller but he won’t go as high. We could also trade down that first pick (if you are thinking Spiller goes lower). What about Toby Gerhart?
As far as Berry goes, I know a lot of folks on the board like him. I’m more so-so on him but I’m trying to predict what Holmgren might do and Holmgren seems to prioritize getting offensive talent before defensive. This is a high pick and it is hard to imagine him taking a safety at that point in the draft.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we go to a WCO, Best might be a good fit
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Spiller is probably a mid 1st round pick.
In the second round, we could still get Best, Dwyer, or Gerhart.
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t spend anything higher than a 3rd on Gerhart.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A few weeks ago he was projected on some sites to go in the 2nd, but now he’s projected as a 3rd rounder.
by emily522 on Dec 23, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had better run a fast 40 at the combine. I personally really like the kid, but his barreling, shoulder down, run over guys style will be much more difficult in the exponentially stronger NFL.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Recent quotes by Holmgren shows hints that he will be willing to give Quinn another season to prove himself.
Holmgren has been quoted saying that “a quarterback can only be judged after 48 starts.”
And also: “They think the world of him, this much I know. If you’re kind of juggling two guys, it becomes very hard for both of them and at times hard for the team. I’d have to study and learn so much more about both those young men.”
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 12:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hmm, the article didn’t show up.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/312642-from-quarterback-to-game-manager-in-cleveland#poll
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moving from the fanshot discussion as the action is more centered here…
A little discussion we had here in the office. Any chance that Holmgren made a phone call and said something like "I pretty much know what we have in Quinn, could I see some more DA please before the end of the season?" I mean the timing of this announcement is pretty strange after there was no mention of it anywhere since the game. Seems a little far-fetched given that an "official" announcement of Holmgren’s position has not been made but is it really that much out of the question?
Not to say that the injury is faked but that maybe it isn’t serious enough to keep him out of the rest of the games…
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I would think with all the crap we have put Quinn through, he would go for that. Wouldn’t that be something that the players’ union would dislike?
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?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 22, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. It is a possibility if they knew it. I don’t think the player’s union gets involved unless it is at the player’s request. I doubt Quinn would involve them in his current situation.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he would go for that should be he wouldn’t go for that
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?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 24, 2009 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My reply from the Fanshot: ‘You can see him get hurt though.’
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True but you can’t tell how serious it is and didn’t he remain in the game after that play? That would seem to suggest it wasn’t that bad of an injury.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t he stay in the game after he was injured in Buffalo last year?
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t quite remember. When it comes to the Browns I have to wipe my memory clean every year or risk massive system failure.
So I looked it up. Actually this is very similar to that situation. Quinn played through the rest of the game. Most of the team did not even know he was injured. Initially in the first of the following week he practiced and was on track to play the following Sunday. Later in the week, after examination by a few doctors, they concluded that he could aggravate the tendons in the finger and he was replaced by Anderson.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, so if it’s the same thing then I don’t think they’re keeping him out just to put DA in.
by emily522 on Dec 22, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
his injury is probably something he could play on, but why risk making it worse in garbage games?
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s crazy. Really. There had better be no better than a 0% chance that Holmgren needs any evaluation whatsoever of DA.
by Western Reserve on Dec 22, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah… it’s a long-shot but a little food for thought. I just thought the timing of the announcement was strange and sudden.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would hope that he would evaluate him so that he can see what would be a fair deal when we move him.
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?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 22, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What do you think Quinn’s chances are of remaining with the team next year under Holmgren? I’m thinking it is slightly better than even odds that he’ll be traded or released. I wish he could have played in these last two games just to get more time for his growth and overall evaluation.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Quinn will still be with the team next year, as a backup at the very least. He still has potential and an affordable contract. Anderson, on the other hand, has too big of a contract to keep around. He’ll land a backup job somewhere but it won’t be here.
by Bumblyjack on Dec 22, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not so sure. I just can’t imagine Quinn at his age and potential being a backup. He isn’t an experienced teacher and he is still a big question mark behind the starter. Will other teams still see potential in him based upon the fact that he was playing for a bad team? I’m thinking maybe a team or two out there might think he just needs a fresh start on a better team. If a couple of teams come knocking, do you think the Browns would deal Quinn? I think if the choice is between a release and keeping him, you keep him. But if the choice is getting some kind of trade value and keeping him? So the question is: does anyone think Quinn has enough value to any other team to offer something in trade? If the answer is no, why should the Browns keep him?
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t th ink a lot of teams out there see a lot of potential in him.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The other question is that if Anderson is released, how much are the Browns obligated to pay him vs if he stays around? Anderson’s salary is around 7.5 million next year with a 2 million roster bonus. If they cut him, are they obligated to pay any of this? I’m no expert on this but in a trade I think the acquiring team gets his contract also which makes Anderson’s trade value nil.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Browns are not obligated to pay the 7.5 million which isn’t too say that that money would count against the cap. We would be saving the money, but the figure itself might still at least partially count against the cap. In an uncapped year though, cap hits are meaningless. Dollars saved become more important which is why I believe that a lot of overpaid players will be cut this offseason since every team will be able to take on cap hits next year.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. I think most teams should view Quinn’s ceiling as relatively low. There’s plenty of tape showing him playing with a decent understanding of the game, decent support (OL/running), but just missing throws all over the field.
by danvail on Dec 22, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there are alot of 2nd and 3rd string QBs that don’t bring being an experienced teacher to the locker room. i think he just needs an entire off season, pre season, and regular season with the 1rst stringers to work out his timing issues, and i don’t think he’ll be half bad. why does everyone who thinks he needs replaced expect him to produce with his sporadic practice times with true starters? just cause kosar did it in dallas doesn’t mean everybody can.
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i expect him to be able to hit the broad side of a barn past 10 yards regardless of practice time, and he hasn’t shown a consistent ability to do that.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well he did well enough in college to be considered for a first round pick that we took, albeit later than expected but still. plz don’t go on about how not all draft picks are reliable or w/e i think the pros outweigh the cons on that. i think the majority of his passes are close it just looks like a timing issue to me i mean the targets at speed he has to hit are a little smaller than the broad side of barn.
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 22, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think he should be throwing over receivers heads on 5 yard slant patterns, maybe thats just me though.
I expect him to be able to lead receivers, rather than throwing behind them or at their feet. I expect him to throw a decent deep ball that the receiver doesn’t have to stop running to catch. thats what i mean by accuracy.
and please don’t tell me its out of the question that a first round qb is a bust because of where he was drafted.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 8:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
everything you’ve said relates to timing like i said.. here let me explain as best i can at least on the deep ball. the WR takes so long to run 40 yards and each time can be different depending on field conditions, press coverage, and multiple other factors. the QB takes a different length of time to throw the ball 40 yards and again each time can be different due to wind speeds and direction yada yada yada. now its only when these two times come in synch with each other do you end up with an “accurate” throw.
also i’m not saying he isn’t a first round bust i mean he did fall from his projected draft spot but i still don’t think that he’s really been given a chance. they can’t all be Matty Ice’s
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 23, 2009 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
throwing at a receciver’s feet or over his head isn’t all due to timing. deep balls are also not really timing patterns, you have time to see the receiver before you throw most of the time, and aren’t counting on him to make a break.
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
….Holmgren made a phone call and said something like “….could I see some more DA please….”
I can’t believe anyone would utter these words, much less Holmgren.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 2:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully this leads to us getting something in return for DA, and we can either get a QB late in the draft or bring in a veteran who is willing to be a back up and properly mentor Quinn. I still don’t think he will be the answer, but at this point we are winning games and if we can stay with him and address other needs with our higher picks I think we will be better off. Who knows. I’m a lot more optimistic about this draft and next season than I was at this time last year.
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?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 22, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
anyone know where to find the total percentage of snaps BQ has played thus far? obviously missing the last two games will prevent him from reaching that escalator in his contract, but considering the high scoring games with DET and KC (despite 14 on special teams), i wonder how close he was getting to the 70%.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 12:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I remember when we were talking about this about the time that Quinn started playing again that there was very little chance he ends up with 70% of the snaps. In fact, I think it was pretty much no chance even if he finished the season.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, he wasn’t that far off from 70% with our projections, and that was assuming the offense would keep playing as terrible as it did. With the good performances that rolub mentioned, that means the offense took more snaps than usual so there might have been a good chance that he would be close to 70% if the offense played well in the last two games. There certainly wasn’t “no chance” of it happening.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Opponent (OPP) followed by the number of pass attempts (PA) followed by the number of rush attempts (RA) followed by the total number off offensive snaps (SNAPS).
OPP PA/RA SNAPS
MIN 35/20 55
DEN 31/21 52
BAL 27/23 50
CIN 48/33 81
BUF 17/41 58
PIT 26/23 49
GNB 29/21 50
CHI 20/29 49
BAL 31/26 57
DET 34/40 74
CIN 35/18 53
SDG 45/22 67
PIT 19/37 56
KAN 18/49 67
Giving Quinn full credit for MIN, DEN, BAL2, DET, CIN2,SDG,PIT and KAN and half credit for for BAL1 means that Quinn has been in for 506 of 818 total offensive snaps (61%). Note: ignoring the series he played in the CHI game and splitting the snaps from BAL1 exactly in half.
Dividing 818 total snaps by 14 games gives an average of 58 offensive snaps per game.
506 + 58 +58 = 622 (estimated number of snaps Quinn)
818 + 58 +58 = 934 (estimated total number of offensive snaps)
622/934 = 67% (the estimated percentage of offensive snaps for Quinn were he not on IR for the final two games of the season.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Man, I was madly doing this and you beat me to it… the only difference is that I actually counted out the snaps in the two partial games (Baltimore and Chicago). This doesn’t change the answer by much…
I have:
Quinn Snaps 1st series of play: 126
Anderson Snaps: 314
Quinn Snaps 2nd series of play: 386
Just to be fair, I’d average the last 6 games that Quinn was in as the offense has been a little better in the last half of the season. This is 383/6 = 64 (rounding up)
So Quinn would have 126 + 386 + 64 + 64 = 640
and Anderson his 314
the total snaps 954
So Quinn would have had 640/954 = 67% (oh so close and the same even with the increased snaps)
At the point when Quinn took over in his second stint, the tally was Quinn 129 and Anderson 314 with 8 games remaining. Assuming the same average snaps per game for the remainder of the season from this point (which I think someone did back then) and you would come up with 55 snaps per game. Give all these to Quinn and do the math and you get:
Quinn 129 + 8*55 = 569 snaps
and a total number of snaps as 129 + 314 + 8*55 = 883
So the projected percentage for Quinn at that time would have been: 569/883 = 64%
And now I’m going to go take a nap. ;-)
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Rec’d you by the way for being a speedy analyst.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Returned the REC.
Either way, and it’s close. Another Detroit or SanDiego game and he could have squeaked past 70%.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is where the math can fool you. When dealing with averages and very little new data to include (2 games) he’d have had to have super-human effort to get even a 3% improvement. Let’s just assume that offense is on the field an inordinate amount of time and Quinn gets 100 snaps in the last 2 games.
So give Quinn 126 + 386 + 100 + 100 = 712
and Anderson his 314
Total snaps become 1026
For a Quinn percentage of 69.4%
For reference our high number of snaps game this year was the first Cincy game (Anderson QB) with 83 and that weird Miami/Indy game this year in which Miami had the ball for 45 minutes resulted in 84 snaps for Miami. If they were trying to minimize the chances that Quinn would get 70% of the snaps this year they did a pretty good job of it.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 22, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ah, I hadn’t looked at the math on any of that. Nicely done.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is just a cruel joke, right? RIGHT!?
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
wow
you know what this is?….its called were going to lose the rest of the year no matter what! oh well we need a good draft pick really now if only STL and TB would win a game lmao!!!!
by kevin122380 on Dec 22, 2009 2:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
anderson may be bad, but quinn hasn’t exactly been helping us win the last two weeks. in fact, he did a lot to help lose last week.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True. Quinn did hardly anything but run for some yards and hand the ball off.
HOWEVER, he managed to keep the turnovers low, thus keeping us competitive and within striking distance….or helping us hold on to a slim lead.
Andersons propensity for throwing interceptions has been and can be absolutely devastating for our chances of winning any remaining games. Let’s pray he can have a few good games to close out the season before we get rid of him. If someone out there is willing to start Bruce Gradkowski, and Charlie Frye for God’s sake then we just might be able to find a taker out there……….somewhere.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 22, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree
for sure i agree with everyone im starting to think we get some defense theres alot of good players in this draft defensively
by kevin122380 on Dec 23, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we need offense
ive been a Browns fan since i was a kid and in my opinion we need a QB Quinn obviously sucks and so does DA so im thinking we draft a QB and get some defense with the rest of the picks this year
by kevin122380 on Dec 22, 2009 2:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
quinn doesn’t “obviously” suck yet. he’s still got some potential and has a shot at being decent. i hope you don’t mean draft a QB in the first round.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
. . . but our defense!?!
i don’t want my Browns to be anything but the next New England Patriots . . . which we cannot be without the next Tom Brady. It seems Tom may not be that, even with his limited playing time. So we take a chance on Clausen, who has led a very bad team to some high offensive marks, right?
Still, how can we go another year without spending a 1st round pick on one of the league’s perennially bad defensive teams. Let’s give Rob Ryan some tools. He deserves them.
Nick
by nick_willis on Dec 22, 2009 3:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
no first round quarterback please. especially clausen. he’s been playing service academies with two NFL receivers to throw to. those numbers are deceiving.
by notthatnoise on Dec 22, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree. NO FIRST ROUND QB. Draft the best defensive Athlete left on the board.
I would take signing a veteran backup in the offseason…someone to help mentor Quinn, and someone who can come in and do a solid, if unspectacular, job if Quinn goes down or is ineffective. This is certainly not the year for QB’s in the draft for us, unless someone of note slides far enough down that they are an absolute steal.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 22, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh come on, every major college team plays a few bad teams. Besides, Navy is a pretty good team and definately not the worst team they’ve played. I went over this with someone else, but Notre Dame’s schedule wasn’t any worse than what other top QB’s played.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 22, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My case against Claussen has always been that they have this high-powered offense that looked mediocre against a few decent teams. If it were just Claussen carrying a bad team, then I would understand, but with the weapons they had, I would have preferred to see more domination against non-top 25 opponents if we think he is really a top 10 QB.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Our Offensive tackles sucked big-time though. Sam Young and Paul Duncan are garbage
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
right. with his schedule and weapons he should have put up huge numbers. instead he looked like an average college QB in games he should have dominated. that doesn’t scream top 10 to me.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 8:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, his schedule wasn’t any worse that other top QB’s. And, while he did have some good receivers, he O-line wasn’t very good and he didn’t have much of a running game so the offense was mostly on him. He carried that team to a few victories, and the only reason they didn’t win more was because of their bad defense. No, he didn’t put up Bradford in ‘08 numbers, but very few quarterbacks ever do. I don’t really know what more you wanted to see from him. His numbers were at or near the top of college football in most every category, and he played in a pro-style offense.
I think most of this hate on Jimmy Clausen is just Notre Dame hate. If he were playing at any other school you wouldn’t be saying this. Please look at the facts.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t care about college football, i don’t care where he went, I’m not some petty notre dame hater. I think he’s got potential to be a good NFL quarterback, i just think his inconsistency against sub par teams is reason enough for him to not be a top ten pick.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
his inconsistency against sub par teams
I provided his stat line in a response to you below. Show me.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Let’s see some proof of this.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Navy: two TDs, one INT, and a loss.
Purdue: 171 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
2008:
1 TD, 2 INT in a loss to MSU
2 TD, 2 INT in a loss to North Carolina
0 TD, 4 INT in a loss to Boston College
147 yds, 47.6% completions, 2 TD, 2INT at michigan
200 yds, 53.8% completions 1 TD, 1 INT at washington
110 yds, 0 TD, 2 INT at navy
I won’t hold USC against him because they’re a good team, but that certainly doesn’t help his cause
I could also throw out the “he’s never won a big game,” but thats dumb and doesn’t mean anything
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I realize most of those are from 2008, but one season shouldn’t make a top 10 pick either, especially for a three year starter.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding me? Why don’t you just go back to his freshman year while you are at it?
The Purdue game this year in the year of our Lord two thousand and nine he was out half of the game with an injury before being brought back in, playing through his injury and leading the game winning drive.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 9:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
why can’t i go back a year? was he not the starter? does that not count? does that year tell us nothing about him as a football player? hadn’t he already been a starter for a year?
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do I really need to explain why what you just provided is completely absurd, or that you completely ignored all the statistical evidence acquired during his most recent year of play only to go back and cherry pick stats from years past?
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
tell me why last year doesn’t matter at all. and that was the point, i was picking games where he played an average game against poor teams
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
where he played an average game against poor teams
2009 (Assuming)
Navy: 9-4 so far
Purdue: 5-7
2008:
MSU: 9-4
North Carolina: 8-5
Boston College: 9-5
michigan: 3-9
washington: 0-12
Not sure what your definition of poor is, but I see maybe 3 poor teams from your list, the others were all decent.
by talonk on Dec 23, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
poor was the wrong word, you’re right, i should have said average
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not that I am defending your’s or Brad’s position, but I believe you will be able to find mediocre stats for any QB against mediocre FBS teams, even Peyton Manning had bad games in college too.
by talonk on Dec 23, 2009 9:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that, and i generally don’t think QBs should be taken that high in the draft, except for very rare occasions.
and i know it was just one example, but didn’t peyton manning play for tennessee? i haven’t looked it up, but i have a hard time believing he had the weapons clausen has.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FYI, Tennessee when Peyton played, was a BCS quality team
by talonk on Dec 23, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Peyton had Jamal Lewis, Travis Henry and Peerles Price.
All very good college players.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, as i said above i was clearly wrong on this one.
jamal really went to tennessee? for some reason that just doesn’t click in my head.
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course. That’s exactly the point.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats not exactly the point, thats the first time someone brought that up, you’re changing the argument
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How is that changing the argument!?!? You’re using that fact to prove he’s not a top 10 pick, but now you’re admitting that EVERY college QB does the same thing? So, in other words, no college QB is worthy of a top 10 pick, not even Peyton Manning.
I’ve said all along that he hasn’t done any worse than other top QB’s against the same competition. So, yes, I’ve been saying that all along — not directly, but implied.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my argument was he has had average games against average opponents. i was told to prove this with stats. i did. i don’t think he should be a top ten pick for a lot of reasons, that being a big one.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No. A few average games doesn’t “prove” anything. If every quarterback has a few average games then that doesn’t prove he shouldn’t be a top 10 pick, because plenty of other QB’s have been top 10 picks with worse performances than him.
By your logic, nobody should be a top 10 pick.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares if they lost? As mentioned many times before, that’s because they had a terrible defense, not because Clausen played poorly. Haven’t we talked about this on here plenty of times — you can’t judge a QB by wins and losses!
Where is that Super Bowl picture of Trent Dilfer?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, take out the loss part, those are still average stats
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or is a 0 TD 4 INT game against BC the defenses fault?
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But every QB has games like that.
Matt Ryan had a game in his senior season in which he threw for “only” 204 yards in a 24-14 win over UMass. The Marcus Camby UMass. Just because he didn’t totally destroy UMass doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a very talented, pro ready QB.
He also had a loss against FSU where he threw for 415 yards but also had 3 INT’s in a 10 point loss. Again, bad games will happen.
In Division 1 football, great QB’s will have down games. It is going to happen. Maybe he has an off night, or his team mates are playing down, whatever it is, it is going to happen.
I don’t want the Browns to draft Jimmy Clausen, but it isn’t because I don’t think the kid is talented. While he is a grade A douche he has the arm and the coaching that all teams should be looking for in a QB/
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’ve said before that it isn’t that i don’t think he’s talented or he won’t be a good quarterback, i just think in this draft he is not one of the five most talented players and thus shouldn’t be a top five pick. heck you could even argue he isn’t the best QB, without it being too big of a stretch
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Ryan’s situation isn’t really comparable. BC had 0 other talent on offense around him, except for one stud offensive tackle which isn’t enough to create offensively. Ryan carried one of the worst offenses in college football to respectability.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 24, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Andre Callender is a beast!
I need mooncamping to track him down. (As a Scary Flanker of course.)
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Such a beast that he had to split carries with LV Whitworth. I don’t think we had a receiver over 5’10 either.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 26, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fine. Every QB has average games once in a while, even the best ones. Cherry-picking stats doesn’t prove anything, especially when most of the games you picked were from last season and in one of the games from this season he only played one half because he got injured and then came back to lead them on a game-winning drive.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, i agree with that, but that wasn’t the argument we were having at the beginning. and i know last year isn’t as important as this year, but those games still count for something.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and it proves that he has a history of average games against average teams, which was my point
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it proves that if you pick a few games over 3 years you’re going to find a few average games. Which you can do for ANY quarterback who has every played college football for that many games.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i chose his most recent two seasons, please don’t change my argument
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my gosh…..you are losing this argument so you find something else to nitpick about to “prove” that you’re right. Does it really matter if it’s 2 or 3 years? Really???
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m not losing this argument. i was told to find proof that he has average games against average opponents, and i did. i proved my argument with facts. by writing three seasons you’re implying you didn’t even really read or think about what i wrote.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with your ‘proof’ is you nearly completely bypassed 2009 in favor of 2008. And then you cherry picked the stats. For example, this year’s Navy game: Sure, you mention the 2 TD – 1 INT, but you completely neglect the 452 yards passing on 37/51, 72.5% completion percentage.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
whats more important, completing passes and gaining yards, or scoring and and holding on to the ball? TDs and INTs are the most important QB stats.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TDs and INTs are the most important QB stats.
Brad, i think this is where you give up.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 23, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
haha ok, fine, they probably aren’t the most important, but i think they matter more than yards and completion percetage.
though to be fair most stats are pretty equal.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right — I need to learn when to stop arguing with illogical people.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats what i mean below. i’m not being illogical. i have a different opinion than you. and i’ve shown in other threads that when i’m shown good evidence i’m willing to concede my opinion.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
though to be fair you’ve shown you’re condescending and have no issue making thinly veiled personal attacks, so i don’t know what i was expecting.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I know you have a problem listening to what other people are saying, because in the past you’ve told me what I meant when I wrote something different. And I repeated myself many times, yet you still kept telling me that I really said something else. So I don’t know what I was expecting.
I guess when you misunderstand what someone is saying then it can sound like a personal attack.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i listened to everything you said here (and on the other thread) and with the exception of that last post have been courteous and not resulted to personal attacks. you started being condescending right from the get go.
People here aren’t looking at facts, they’re just assuming he played a bad schedule and knocking him because he played at Notre Dame so they think he’s overhyped.
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This made me laugh, considering how often disscussions with Brad devolve into semantic arguments.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It happens at least once an article.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 23, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? Please show me examples.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Woah woah. I’m not arguing with you, bud. I was just making a witty observation that may be based on opinion. Your beef is with notthatnoise, not me. You can’t have a scientific explanation for every single sentence. So, sorry.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 23, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah sorry, when we get to this size, obviously I have no clue who you respond to unless you state it.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 23, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, my computer still shows the responses tabbed. Is yours not like that?
By the way, you can use the “up” feature on the bottom of each comment to see what comment it was in response to. It’s helpful in long threads.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah. After a while it tabs everything to the same size for me.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 23, 2009 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha that’s messed up. The tabbed feature on this site is great.
by skipkirk on Dec 23, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Same here.
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?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 24, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You really sound dumb. Apparently playing Navy once a year means you can’t play in the NFL.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s scale back in the absolutes a bit. Not everything is cut and dry.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
having strictly average performances against teams like navy means you shouldn’t be a top 10 pick. i wouldn’t be opposed to clausen in the second, but no way he is top 10.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 8:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here are Jimmy Clausen’s stats for the year
Could you please find his so-called ‘average performances’ for me?
This stuff about Clausen is pure myth. His effort was accompanied by a shoddy run game and an absolutely dreadful defense. If Notre Dame’s defense gives up 30 or less points/game, they are a 7-5 team — better than their 6-6 mark. If they give up 20 or less every game, they stand at a remarkable 11-0-1. In my opinion, this is purely a case of a guy playing on a crummy team. If the Irish win 10 games this year, Clausen is in New York at the Heisman presentation, likely putting most people’s fears that he can’t actually throw the ball to rest.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right. People here aren’t looking at facts, they’re just assuming he played a bad schedule and knocking him because he played at Notre Dame so they think he’s overhyped.
I went through this with another poster a couple weeks ago. I showed him the rankings of ND’s schedule and how it compared favorably to most of the other top teams. I’m not going to go through that again but someone can search for it if they want to.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I found a couple
This one had ND’s schedule ranked 27th (out of 120).
CBSSportsline has them 48th.
Sagarin has them with the 31st schedule. That’s better than Texas (and Colt McCoy finished third in the Heisman voting with worse numbers than Clausen), Cincinnati, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Pittsburgh, Okaloma St., and many more.
In other words, their schedule wasn’t great but it was certainly above average. Definately not bad enough to discount his play because of it.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re misunderstanding what i’m saying. I know their schedule wasn’t any worse than other teams. I also know that you should absolutely dominate inferior teams if you’re going to be a top ten QB. Clausen put up great numbers for the most part, and played very well, and deserves to be picked in the first round. But I don’t think he’s a sure thing at all, and top 10 picks should be a sure thing.
here’s what i mean: Brady quinn had about the same stats as clausen his junior year, played about the same schedule, and won a lot more games, all with a first time college head coach. I don’t see a reason why clausen should be expected to be any better than quinn.
and I’m not a notre dame hater, I couldn’t care less about college football, please don’t assume everyone with a dissenting opinion is a stupid fanboy.
and this is at Western Reserve: don’t play the “if they had only given up this many points” game, because it works the other way too. If they only score 20 points every game they’re 3-9
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and this is at Western Reserve: don’t play the "if they had only given up this many points" game, because it works the other way too. If they only score 20 points every game they’re 3-9
OK, that makes absolutely no sense. His point was that Clausen would get more hype and more recognition for his great season if his team had won more games, and it was bad defense that kept them from winning games, NOT bad offense. So that wasn’t Clausen’s fault. Saying “if they only scored 20 points a game” meaning your taking away points that Clausen helped them score, which is a completely different argument. He’s not trying to say that Notre Dame as a team is better than they are, only that Clausen would get more recognition for his stats if ND’s defense had played better and they won more games.
His point was about the perception of ND (and Clausen, because QB’s are often judged by how their team played). If their defense had played better and ND won more games, then Clausen wouldn’t be assumed to have played poorly against mediocre teams like you and other are saying now. You completely missed his point.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
please don’t assume everyone with a dissenting opinion is a stupid fanboy.
Well, when you keep giving the same argument over and over again without any facts to back you up then what am I supposed to think?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is also why i get on you about how you treat mooncamping. whether you mean to or not, you come across as very condescending and seem to dismiss arguments out of hand because you have decided someone isn’t rational. i never gave you reason to believe i disliked notre dame, but you assumed that and used it as a reason to dismiss me immediately
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, Brad is king of the strawmen.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats true in some cases, but it has nothing to do with this argument since notthatnoise is clearly in the wrong.
by Rocland on Dec 23, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you also only addressed my comment to WR, what about the rest of my post?
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t dismiss you because you assumed you didn’t like Notre Dame — I guessed that it might be a reason but that was certainly not my only argument. I used rational argument against what you were saying.
I don’t like people arguing irrationally, and that’s what you’re doing right now. I’m a math guy so I like logic, and illogical comments really bother me. Also, this has nothing to do with mooncamping. I’ve told you my problems with him, and you ignored those and made up your own reasons.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m also a math guy, I’m studying physics and astronomy right now.
i am being rational. i disagree with you, i have my reasons, i’m not the only one that thinks they’re rational. i gave you my stats. what about your argument is more logical than mine?
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If he were playing at any other school you wouldn’t be saying this.
People here aren’t looking at facts, they’re just assuming he played a bad schedule and knocking him because he played at Notre Dame so they think he’s overhyped.
you mentioned it twice, once was after my very first comment, so you had already assumed i wasn’t going to be using rational arguments, you never even gave me a chance because you were so sure of your opinion and couldn’t imagine anyone believing you were wrong.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just think your presentation of the stats are a bit disingenuous, like ignoring most of this past year in favor of 2008, for example. Or the instances where you show TD-INT but neglect the passing yards or completion percentage, which you did on multiple occasions. I think if your case was stronger you’d be less willing to cherry pick the numbers and show the entire stat line.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it’s illogical. It’s illogical to think you’ve “proved” an argument by saying he’s had a few average games against average opponents when EVERY quarterback does that once in a while, even the best ones. So that doesn’t make him a top 10 pick.
You started out arguing that he wasn’t worthy of a top 10 pick because he played against a weak schedule and didn’t put up great stats. But we should proof that his stats were among the best and his schedule was above average, so then you started saying he had a few average games against average opponents as somehow that would “prove” your argument. Then, when I mentioned that you could say the same thing for every QB, you said it didn’t matter and I was changing the argument, which I wasn’t. If that is true for EVERY QB, even the great ones, than how can that be a detriment to him? How can you use that against him? That’s illogical.
So, yes, if you’re going to cherry-pick that he had a few averages games, then you are right. But that wasn’t the basis for our argument. Our argument started out that he wasn’t worthy of a top 10 pick because of his mediocre stats, and that’s just not true.
That’s what bothers me the most, that you’re changing the argument and saying you have “proved” something when you haven’t. Cherry-picking stats from a few games doesn’t prove anything. When you do that I’m going to tell you that you’re wrong, and if you think that’s being condescending then so be it.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
*My last sentence of the first paragraph should read “that doesn’t NOT make him a top10 pick”.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
instead he looked like an average college QB in games he should have dominated.
this was my original argument. I did not say he didn’t put up good stats for the season. I know even great QBs do that. I’ll concede i should have said top 5. I think a top five pick should be as close to a sure thing as you can get, and i think there are five better picks (and probably more) than clausen. One of my points in an earlier post was that during quinn’s junior year he put up similar numbers, and better in his senior year, but clausen doesn’t get the benefit of that fourth year. Quinn also didn’t lay an egg in a single game his junior or senior years, so to say every QB has an off day doesn’t always apply at the college level, and since i have an example of it happening its not illogical to say that. If clausen has similar numbers with less consistency, are we really supposed to believe he’s worthy of a top five pick? what makes jimmy clausen a better pick than brady quinn?
My argument requires me to cherry pick stats from single games, not entire seasons. I argued he had games where he played and average game against an average team, so obviously i’m only going to be picking stats from a few games. thats what i said he did to begin with, and thats what i provided stats to do.
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
last sentence should read “thats what i provided stats to prove”
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
http://espn.go.com/ncf/player/gamelog?playerId=150329&year=2005
http://espn.go.com/ncf/player/gamelog?playerId=150329&year=2005
These are brady quinn’s stats for his junior and senior years. Over two seasons there is a whopping one game that can be called average, the 2005 USC game. And you can’t really blame him for that, that team may have been considered one of the best college football teams ever if they hadn’t lost to texas.
Jimmy clausen has better weapons than quinn had. I don’t see any reason why clausen shouldn’t show the consistency that quinn did. These stats above disprove the notion that every QB has an off day once in a while. quinn didn’t for two years. I’ll admit I didn’t think it was possible either until i looked at the stats, but there it is.
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
looking back you could make a case for the 2006 michigan game as well, even though quinn threw 3 TDs, he also tossed 3 picks. Again, though, this wasn’t against an average opponent. Michigan went 11-2 that season and was ranked #2 in the nation for much of the season before losing to #1 Ohio state.
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Quinn also didn’t lay an egg in a single game his junior or senior years, so to say every QB has an off day doesn’t always apply at the college level
Without looking it up, I think Quinn crapped the bed, along with the rest of the Irish, in his last Sugar Bowl against LSU. The game that got JaMarcus drafted number one overall.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 2:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
after looking it up, you are correct. but like the two games mentioned above, LSU was a really good football team, not an average one, as is the case with clausen’s bad games.
I also realize i posted the 2005 stats twice, so here’s 2006:
http://espn.go.com/ncf/player/gamelog?playerId=150329&year=2006
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion, that “I declare you irrational” shtick does grow a little tiresome sometimes.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Tom Brady that great or is it the coach? How much i dispise Belichick, I think it is his system that make Bradty flourish. Example Matt Cassell. Belichick made him look like someone who he can trade. Bledsoe could have taken that team to the Super Bowl with that defense, wait he did and lost against the Packers.
by holmes213 on Dec 22, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Cassell is that bad. He just has an awful team around him.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree. That long throw to Chambers Sunday was all I needed to see.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Should we start to question Quinns durability?
by The Brown Note on Dec 22, 2009 5:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yes
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Dec 22, 2009 8:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know, i think this is probably an injury quinn would play through in a different situation.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 8:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Lord. We could potentially be watching Anderson vs. Frye. Is anyone else feeling a bit nauseous?
by JustBob on Dec 22, 2009 5:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
To carry over from Bernie’s Metcalf thread:
Just when you think things are going well, the other shoe doesn’t drop, it kicks you in the nuts.
by JustBob on Dec 22, 2009 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hmm...
This all seems a bit suspect to me. Like when a politician is not telling the “whole truth.”
http://www.nfl.com/videos/cleveland-browns/09000d5d8152e4cb/Quinn-on-IR
No specifics. Just “He hurt his foot…” Where are the details?
by xosie on Dec 22, 2009 6:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Golan pointed out (correctly) that you could see Quinn limping after the run. This is not a conspiracy.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was limping, and the announcers also made reference to it.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 22, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Still, alluding to an x-ray or something would be nice. Even a medical term or description would have been welcomed. He rolled out of bounds and didn’t even take a hit. If Quinn’s going to get hurt every year, then I don’t see the point in investing the time, hoping that one day he will play enough games in a row to mature.
I (foolishly) sprained my ankle last December just running around having fun in the snow, so who am I to judge… But I knew it was a sprain, not just a hurt.
by xosie on Dec 22, 2009 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about? His left foot gets crushed under a defender. If you’re going to scrutinize, then you need to actually check the evidence.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 22, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HIPAA anybody?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 22, 2009 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This.
But does it apply to the NFL injury reports?
by holmes213 on Dec 22, 2009 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine when it impacts game play (a player is reported as doubtful or questionable, etc.), the team has more obligation to report why than it does when it does not impact game play (a player goes on injured reserve.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 23, 2009 8:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there is someone more deserving of that bonus Quinn would have gotten…
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Dec 22, 2009 8:57 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Hank Poteat?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Costanzo
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 7:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
David Emme
I do not think Quinn is hurt.
I think Lerner foisted Quinn on Manginig since he was a first round pick and has not been a consistant starter after two years in the league before this season.
I am fairly sure Mangini screwed Brady out of a roster bonus of 5 million.
When he was inserted as a starter there was no possible way for him to win this bonus.
Personally I think Mangini is a Derek Anderson fan and wants to give him snaps and look good for a few games to put him at starter next year.
On the other hand, if he works out very well in the last 2 ngames, can use this for a trade of Anderson and get some better quality in returen(draft pics.)
When I say foisting Quinn, this not mean I do not like Quinn and after the last few weeks seen as a starter.
Peronally what I see in Anderson and Quinn are both class acts when these changes occur.
When queried on his statur Quinn said he does notr speculate why and obviously I need to work more on my skills.
by GOD'S OTHER SON on Dec 22, 2009 9:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
it was definitely funny, but the grammar and spelling almost made my head explode.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 8:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, guys, he must be right considering the humility behind his alias alone.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m interested in why he hasn’t posted a rebuttal yet, i was looking forward to it.
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if mangini was that big of a DA fan, why did he bench him, for the second time, in the middle of the season. mangini wants DA to start next year? sheesh.
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 22, 2009 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who messes with a 2 game win streak. If anything, Mangini always said that he goes witht he person who gives them a better chance to win, and with Quinn at QB they have won 2 in a row. Noe the offense has to get used to DAs style of play. Receivers need to get on his page. RBs need to get the steps worked out, and the O-line needs to get back in with DAs cadence.
The plus side to this is Mangini didn’t wait untill Saturday to name a starter.
by holmes213 on Dec 23, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the transition is going to be difficult, but not as difficult as it could be. these guys did play a bunch of games with DA already this year, so they should be decently familiar with everything.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I may be crazy, but I’m halfway expecting a good performance from DA against the Raiders. He’s capable of one game wonders, as long as there is no pressure involved. Then again, he’s also capable of going 10-30 with 3 INTs. Let’s hope for the former – call it DA’s ‘swan song’.
by bbstirrd on Dec 23, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It will be interesting around here if Anderson has career days this Sunday and next.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only thing interesting would be what draft picks we could get for him.
by holmes213 on Dec 23, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
these guys did play a bunch of games with DA already this year, so they should be decently familiar with everything.
True. The bad throws to the other team, running right into pressure, you know, the usual.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just saying, if Harrison and Cribbs keep running like they are, we might get a little more out of DA.
It is DA, but still, one can hope eh?
by skipkirk on Dec 22, 2009 10:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It is DA, but still, one can hope eh?
Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man. —Nietzsche
Quite fitting in this instance, no?
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 23, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we have all had as much out of DA as we can take.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 7:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The worst part of it all was that fans wanted him to play well last year. He had a great year and then it went down the crapper. The offensive system changed, there is more tape on him, and his “best” receiver had 10w-30 for gloves. I really hope he does well somewhere.
by holmes213 on Dec 23, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(On if they will be able to run the no huddle with Anderson)- “Yes, he’s been working on it. He worked on it during training camp. I’m comfortable that he’ll be able to go out and do it effectively.”
Part of Mangini’s transcript.
On my part, I would be very worried if we run the no huddle with Anderson. It’ll just be 10 players led by Captain Clueless.
by skipkirk on Dec 22, 2009 10:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Instead of ten players led by Captain Noodlearm.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 23, 2009 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or Capt. Morgan.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 7:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
now THAT would be a game worth watching
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 8:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I am really not looking forward to is DA moping around as he walks back to the sideline after another bonehead INT.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 23, 2009 12:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah no shit. That’s the way to lead the team, DA. Mope, lay on the turf, schlep around with your shoulders sagging a little more this go-round. That’ll show ’em.
by johnnyphoenix on Dec 23, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just looking at those photos makes me want to type out a serious argument for starting Ratliff instead.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 2:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t have to. The picture IS the argument.
by skipkirk on Dec 23, 2009 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just looking at those photos makes me want to type out a serious argument for starting Ratliff instead.
Just ask mooncamping to do it for you.
by emily522 on Dec 23, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hah. I love to read moon’s polemics on why Ratliff is the future, but I’m not sure I’d call them arguments exactly….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love it when someone says something like “polemics” here. Then I KNOW I’m not on Cleveland.com.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just as I love that one can say things like that and be understood here, unlike said location!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the place that shall not be named
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bring out the Rat!!!
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 7:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
woops reply fail. :( (moping back to my computer)
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 7:34 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
This should get everyone’s blood pumping this morning…
I see a lot of posts “No QB in the first round!” Why is this some kind of mantra? Are you saying we don’t need a franchise/future QB on this team? Are you OK with Ratliff, DA and Brady? So good QBs don’t come out of the first round? All the scouts and front offices on all the teams are wrong about the prospects of QBs and, therefore, QBs in the first round are all busts?
I cannot fathom this logic. If we need a QB on this team for the future, why pick up flyers in the later rounds (a la Frye) and insert them in the hope we have outsmarted all the other teams in the league? And PLEASE spare me the Tom Brady comments as good QBs in later rounds are relatively rare. We’ve been through all that before. You are definitely more likely to pick up a decent QB higher in the draft than later.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 10:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
IMO: You build the bottom half of the roster first, then the top half, and then you grab a QB. We’ve done it backwards twice now in the expansion era, and look at the results. Let’s solidify the line and establish the run first, and then grab a QB if we need one (not entirely convinced that Quinn can’t be the guy).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree to build in the trenches and establish a run game. At the same time, we could undoubtedly use a few playmakers. Without trying to throw everyone currently on the roster under the bus, couldn’t we consider what we have now a good ‘bottom half,’ or a good base to build upon?
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Unless Holmgren blows it up, this is the year to find playmakers at DB and linebacker and halfback while shoring up the right side of the line. 2011 is the QB year.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, in that regard then, I wouldn’t advocate a complete and total blow up — but I’m going to give Holmgren a pretty long leash. Also, and I know this has been rehashed multiple times here, but I really don’t see that there’s too much to blow up. At this point, I’m not sure it takes a genius football mind to discern the real football talent from the others. Holmgren’s job is going to be guiding a team that is already down, out and stripped down and to make competent decisions moving forward. I hope this incorporates some of things you mention, like the run game and LBs, but, again, the man is going to have a pretty long leash with me.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
…I really don’t see that there’s too much to blow up.
Statement of the day.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant I think we are about at rock bottom as is.
by Western Reserve on Dec 23, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I got that. I like the way you put it.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have been saying this for weeks.
Couldn’t be more true.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Does any team build like this? How is getting a good QB building backwards and how have the Browns done this? Anderson was not exactly a sought after player when we picked him off. Quinn is the only QB in the past few years we’ve picked up in the first round.
Look at the teams in the playoffs this year. All have built their teams around respectable or elite QBs. Look at the division leaders. You can name every QB on these teams without even thinking about it. They are the best in the league. So if you read above there is definitely a lot of opinion that we do not have this caliber of QB on the Browns right now. Quinn is the question mark but my personal belief is that he is not in the respectable or elite class.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just off the top of my head,
QB first:
Falcons, Giants, Colts, Bengals, Titans, Chargers, Chiefs, Eagles, Lions, 49ers
Team first:
Pats, Dolphins, Jets, Ravens, Steelers, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, Packers, Saints, Panthers, Cards
Some of those a iffy at best.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sometimes i agree with you, i just feel like this year in particular there isn’t a QB that warrants a pick as high as what our first rounder will be. I’m not saying there are no first round QBs, just none i want top 5.
by notthatnoise on Dec 23, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good point. I’m still wondering about Bradford. I like his accuracy but I don’t know if I’d like to pick him that high with his downsides. Maybe if he drops in the order or shows he is in good shape at the combine/try outs he’ll merit a high pick.
So if people are saying “no QB in the first round” just because of what is available this year I’m likely on board with that sentiment.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats what i’m saying here. I also would love bradford, but only if he manages to slip to the second round, i think the injury situation is too much of an unknown to use a top 5 on him. Had he been healthy this year and put up a season even close to 2008, i might have said pick him first.
As a side note: one reason some people advocated not drafting adrian peterson was his injury history. wouldn’t it suck if the browns passed him up and it turned out the same way?
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I undestand and agree with you on this topic. Here is the info I have gathered:
Team- Player- Draft Round
Arizona - Warner- UnDrafted
Atlanta- Ryan- First
Baltimore- Flacco- First
Carolina- Delhomme -Undrafted
Chicago- Cutler- First
Cincinnati- Palmer- First*
Cleveland- Quinn- First
Dallas- Romo- Undrafted
Denver- Orton- Fourth
Detroit- Stafford- First*
Green Bay -Rodgers- First
Houston- Schuab- Third
Indianapolis- P. Manning- First*
Jacksonville- Garrard- Fourth
Kansas City- Cassel- Seventh
Miami- Henne- Second
Minnesota- Favre- Second
New England- Brady- Sixth
New Orleans- Brees- Second
New York Giants- E. Manning- First*
New York Jets- Sanchez- First
Oakland- Gradkowski/Russell- Sixth/First*
Philadelphia- McNabb- First
Pittsburgh- Rothlisberger- First
San Diego- Rivers- First
San Francisco- Smith- First*
Seattle- Hasselbeck- Sixth
St. Louis- Bulger/Boller- Sixth/First
Tampa Bay- Freeman- First
Tennessee -Young- First
Washington- Campbell- First
*First overall
59% of the starting QBs in the NFL are first rounders and 69% in the first two rounds. But you can break it down and see who has actually been successfull and only 4 first rounders have played in the Superbowl – Mannings, McNabb, Rothlesberger.
There are some irrelevant players too, such as Boller, Russell, Smith, Campbell. Possible irrelevant: Cutler
All in all there are good points in having a first/ high draft pick as QB, but we need to give Quinn time. We have our high pick, let’s mold him.
I was listening to Dan Patrick show and he said that Campbell was “done” in the league as a starter, but wasn’t sure on Quinn yet. He says he needs about 50 games to see if a player will be a bust. I agree with this statement due to the fact that if you get drafted high, you are on a bad team.
by holmes213 on Dec 23, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Very nice work. I’ve done this before too. The later round successes are definitely anomalies, especially when you look at the number of successes vs the number of failures round by round.
It is going to be interesting to see what Holmgren does with Quinn. Can accuracy be developed? If anyone can do it (or see that it is done), Holmgren can.
/rec
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if accuracy can be developed, but route running, reading blitzes calling applicable audibles, and going through the progresion can. These will help witht he accuracy, because he might not need to throw in tight coverage.
by holmes213 on Dec 23, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point, and nice work above!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
mechanics can be developed, and that can improve accuracy
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would love a QB.
Just not with a top five pick.
We have too many positions to fill (RT, RG, RB, WR, TE) to be bringing in a young QB.
See Tim Couch as a QB who had no shot at ever being anything more than a decent QB because of his surroundings.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True, I am in the corner of building your Lines, both sides, then drafting a Defensive playmaker, then find those QB’s or RB’s or WR’s.
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
reply fail again , apologies, this inner ear infection has my equilibrium off, :(
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 23, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By the time you build the entire team of people who basically do not score, you have been through 3 or 4 years like this one and the players from year one are starting to decline. Then you get your QB who may not work out? Lets say he has a so-so first year… like this year’s rookies Sanchez and Stafford. Do you spend another year giving them a chance or do you try another? Can we cite examples of teams that are doing well that didn’t start with a decent QB and build around him other than Baltimore?
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at Pittsburgh. Before Roethlisberger, their qb position was littered with Tommy Maddox, Kordell Stewart, Mike Tomczak, and Neil O’Donnell. They had a good team most of those years, but it wasn’t until they got Roethlisberger that it put them over the top.
by bbstirrd on Dec 23, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the steelers were a dominant overall team that won despite Rofflesburger’s terrible play. Not the other way around
by Rocland on Dec 23, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Roethlisberger has a 98 and then a 99 QB rating in his first two years in the league.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
granted, but he was brough in to a team that was already established. And the runnig game kept him from having to pass alot.
by holmes213 on Dec 23, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, in 2005’s Superbowl, Roethlisberger was 9/21 with 0 tds and 2 picks, so the statement holds up for the most important game of the year.
by joeee on Dec 23, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But he did allegedly score a rushing touchdown.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 23, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One of the worst called games ever.
Now that Holmgren is our leader, should that game piss me off even more?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it is possible for that game to piss me off more than it did at the time.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 24, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and F*%# the Steelers.
Yep. Something we can all agree on for sure. LOL. /rec
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Dec 23, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That should automatically post green here and at CJ.
Slim 15, you will be missed. RIP Chris Henry
by Danimal, Destroyer of Worlds on Dec 23, 2009 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Charlie Frye gets the call for the Raiders in Cleveland Sunday.
Jamarcus Russell back to the bench.
by palcal on Dec 23, 2009 10:47 PM EST 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.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
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.
