What to do at QB
by danvail on Dec 22, 2009 4:23 PM EST
291 comments
Being the single most important piece of the offensive puzzle, the quarterback position is widely critiqued and closely scrutinized. Yet, at least speaking for myself, I hadn't spent much time thinking about what to do at QB for 2010 for two main reasons: we had/have an unknown in Brady Quinn, and the team was so downright awful that to focus on one position would have felt like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unfortunately, now that we've lost Quinn for the last two games we have every bit of experience with Quinn that we will prior to making any 2010 QB decisions. We'll have to make our futile speculations out of our current data set.
Of course, DA is irrelevant and highly unlikely to be a Brown come 2010. So focusing on Quinn and looking at 2009 stats, Quinn's line isn't gut wrenchingly horrible given his experience level:
| Stats Overview | Passing | |||||||||
| SPLIT | CMP | ATT | YDS | CMP% | YPA | LNG | TD | INT | SACK | RAT |
| 2009 | 136 | 256 | 1339 | 53.1 | 5.23 | 59 | 8 | 7 | 19 | 67.2 |
| Projected | 155 | 293 | 1530 | 53.1 | 5.23 | 59 | 9 | 8 | 22 | 67.2 |
| Career | 184 | 353 | 1902 | 52.1 | 5.39 | 59 | 10 | 9 | 20 | 66.8 |
Yet he's posted a DVOA of only -18.7%, which for the FO uninitiated is quite low, as in below replacement level.
| Player | Team | DYAR | Rk | YAR | Rk | DVOA | Rk | VOA | Passes | Yards | EYds | TD | FK | FL | INT | C% |
| B.Quinn | CLE | -126 | 30 | -140 | 32 | -18.7% | 31 | -19.6% | 259 | 1,204 | 1,172 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 52.7% |
What's worse is his shortcomings seem to be more related to accuracy than mental errors. Watching him, I've not seem him make a large number of what I would consider "rookie mistakes". What I have seen is him missing throws to all areas of the field, especially mid and deep passes. This is just lay observation, but I'm not seeing the type of QB from whom a large improvement can be expected through experience. It's hard to coach accuracy.
The 2010 FA QB list is depressingly void of realistic improvements. We'll draft high, perhaps even high enough to have our pick of the 2010 QB class. Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are both potential top picks, is either worth our pick? No one likes the idea of watching poor play while waiting for a QB to develop, but if it has to happen the sooner the better, right?
Without trying to get too deep into the pros and cons of Quinn's game, what should the Browns do at QB for 2010?
0 recs |
291 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Some early votes for drafting a QB in the 2nd to 3rd rounds… can anyone explain their reasoning here to me?
Such a QB would likely be years away from helping. That makes sense if you have a solid but aging QB, but the Browns have a number of holes that such a pick could be used on. If you’re confident sticking with Quinn for 2010, then why use a second or third rounder on a QB?
by danvail on Dec 22, 2009 7:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Better value. I did not vote for that option, but I assume the people who did believe a first-round draft pick spent on quarterback would be a waste with all the Browns needs.
by gahnki on Dec 22, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Second and third round QBs suck almost all of the time. Yea, Brees came from there but he was 1st in the second round and pretty much all of the other 2nd and 3rd rounders are awful.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 22, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some 2nd and 3rd round QBs:
Chad Henne, Matt Schaub, Drew Brees, Jake Plummer, Kordell Stewart, Brett Favre, Chris Chandler, Randall Cunningham, Boomer Esiason, Jeff Hostetler, Neil Lomax, Joe Montana, Danny White, Ron Jaworski, Dan Fouts, Ken Anderson, Ken Stabler, Fran Tarkenton, Don Meredith and Milt Plum.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thank you for stating what 100+ others of us were thinking.
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 22, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can cherry pick all you want, but almost none of even those hand-picked names came in and started their rookie years.
My point is that If what you’ve seen of Quinn so far has not indicated to you that you need a new starter for 2010, then why use a 2nd or 3rd round pick on that position? You should use that to try to find an impact player in one of our other areas of need, one that won’t take years to (maybe) develop.
Personally, I don’t see Quinn panning out. I think we need a new starter, and the only name that really jumps out to me as both a potential improvement in 2010 and a long term answer is Sam Bradford. (Clausen is also looked highly upon by scouts, and could also turn out to be both a short term improvement and a long term answer but I prefer Bradford for his accuracy and polish.)
If we need a new starter for 2010, and
1. there is unlikely to be a FA that can be a long term answer and
2. there is unlikely to be a 2nd-3rd round QB that can be an immediate improvement
then we should bite the bullet and draft a QB, as painful as that might sound.
by danvail on Dec 22, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just sayin’ that there are quality QBs to be found in the second and third rounds.
I voted for ‘stick with Quinn, make no significant addition’.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to see us take a good long look at UDFA and mid-tier FA QB’s though.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What you said here….it doesn’t matter if they came in and were good right away. It matters that they turned into good pro Qbs
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’ll have a hard time finding anyone to disagree with this, but it’s not the point I was making.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 8:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My problems with this article:
Nowhere in the article does it state any sort of parameter for what “success” is. At the most, they hint that games started indicate success.
It gives a “success” rate of 3% for 2nd/3rd rounders, yet doesn’t measure the “success” rate for 4th through 7th rounders for a comparison; it’s likely that 3% is higher than the rate for those later rounds.
It blindly gives 1st round QBs a 20% success rate. There’s no two-column insert that lists all the 1st round QBs since 1992, so 20% seems to be a stab in the dark.
If you’re going to select an unsuccessful QB, I’d rather be in the 97% of 2nd/3rd round failures than the 80% of 1st round failures. The cost of missing on your first round pick is significant; Browns fans should know this.
so this theory is great and all, but it’s based on opinion.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 23, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
and correct.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t take it as a scientific polling. My point is ONLY that unless you are comfortable with Quinn for 2010, we should spend a high pick on a QB.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So are you saying that if you are uncomfortable with Quinn at QB, we should take the 80% chance (according to this article) that our 1st round pick will fail as a QB, when the team has glaring needs at other positions as well?
Regardless if Quinn is the answer or not, I think the Browns need to take best player available in the 1st round. If that’s a QB, so be it. but I’m not going to pigeonhole the pick at this point.
and I didn’t accuse you of taking it as scientific polling; just pointing out that the article doesn’t “prove” anything. It just agrees with your opinion.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 23, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Go research overall success rates for every position. I think you may have an unrealistic view of the success rate of any position.
Also, I ran through the first round QBs from 1992 through 2006. I’d say 11 of 34 had a sustained, successful effort. 32%.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Go research overall success rates for every position.
This would be a fruitless, subjective endeavor.
i also ran through the list, and came up with 10 out of 35 (not sure who missed on the total). So 28%? Great. I’m not going to argue that other positions have higher “success” rates, just that saying a QB has to be taken in the first round is not a prudent plan of attack before we even know where the Browns are drafting and who the Browns sign in free agency.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 23, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I’m saying is it’s the only prudent plan of attack if you believe Quinn is not our guy. I doubt the success rate for a QB would be that much worse than most other positions, so if you’re going to gamble (and it’s all a gamble) then do so on the most important position on the field. As far as FA goes, again, the list for QBs is very poor. It’s likely much more prudent to fill other holes via FA than to try to at QB.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
While it’s true that every pick is a gamble, the odds are a lot longer for some than others. For example, a Left Tackle who doesn’t cut it as a Left Tackle can move to Right Tackle or either of the guard positions. A QB who can’t cut it as a quarterback is out of the league.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Same with a RB. Or a WR. Or almost any position other than LT.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with all of this is that no one is looking specifically at the players in this year’s draft.
You can’t draft a type (1st rounder), you must draft a specific guy. Sounds obvious, I know.
But there is a difference between drafting Peyton Manning and Eli Manning, between taking a guy with serious physical skills whom scouts are drooling over (who happens to rocket up draft boards after the combine) versus taking a guy who has been at or near the top of the mock drafts for a long time.
I do think it makes sense to draft your QB in the first round when you need a franchise guy, but there is no use drafting Jamarcus Russel in the first. I would have put his odds at much less than that 20%. I would have put Eli’s at over 50%.
If we really want a QB in the first this year and Bradford is gone, do we go to Clausen just to take a 1st rounder? What if he was gone, too? Do we try to get McCoy in the 2nd?
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Clausen and Mallet will go ahead of Bradford
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 24, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that Mallet has a good shot at going first overall.
He is going to test off the charts.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree!
This is all on the premise that someone that is worthy of the pick is available. If there is no one the FO sees as a franchise QB, then of course this is all moot.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t see anyone worth the risk at where we will be drafting. Even a guy like Mallet or Locker (who apparently have been rumored to be possible 1st overall picks) have questions. There isn’t a guy like Matt Ryan or Carson Palmer who stands out as being a bullet proof prospect to me.
I am really happy that Holmgren probably has a lot of input as to which QBs to take, though, and trust him to take a good one if he pulls the trigger.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am really happy that Holmgren probably has a lot of input as to which QBs to take, though, and trust him to take a good one if he pulls the trigger.
Completely agree. I’ve really been against taking Clausen but… if Holgren thinks that’s best, then so be it.
by emily522 on Dec 27, 2009 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that 2nd rounders can be very good, 3rd rounders can be too but at lower rate. But of the retired players you can only really use Montana as an example towards todays NFL. The rest of the QB’s on that list had a different job than today’s quarterbacks.
But todays Quarterbacks can too come beyond the first, Breese, Favre, Shaub, Romo, and Brady make up half of this years top QB’s by QB Rating. But that also means the other half are all in the first round, and 4 out of 5 of those are top 10 picks. The odd one out is Aaron Rodgers who was projected to be top 10.
by OSUMoneyball on Dec 23, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
AND none of those modern QBs came in and started right off the bat. This conversation isn’t just about QB drafting strategy. It’s about QB drafting strategy for the Browns in 2010. Meaning if you think we need a QB, we should get one that can reasonably be expected to contribute quickly. Ryan, Roslinger, and Flacco proved that rookie QBs can come in and not just struggle. What draftee that had been passed on 30 to 80 times can say the same? None.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 8:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
how many draftees passed on 30-80 times were given that chance?
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 23, 2009 8:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And why would that change for the Browns in 2010?
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I guess you are right, a trend has been established.
Lets break it. We´re trend setters not getters.
by mooncamping on Dec 23, 2009 8:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First rounders struggle just as much as second or third rounders (Manning, Manning, Aikman, Couch, Aikman, etc..). Matt Ryan is the exception to the rule, not the rule.
Who is Roslinger?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
^ extraneous Aikman.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Roethlisberger is so tedious to type. If his fans don’t bother pronouncing his name, than I don’t feel obligated to type it properly.
/Steelers bash
No, they don’t struggle as much on the whole. Some first rounders have come in and posted 70+ or even 80+ QB ratings starting the their rookie years. You just don’t get that out of later talent, because the QBs that are taken after round 1 usually need time to develop an aspect or more of their game. Even the ones that end up successful need that time.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First year QB ratings for first rounders selected during the expansion era:
stafford 61
sanchez 62
freeman 60
ryan 88
flacco 80
russell 56
quinn 57
young 66
leinart 74
cutler 89
smith 41
rodgers 40
campbell 77
manning 55
rivers 111
roethlisberger 98
losman 39
palmer 77
leftwich 73
boller 62
grossman 75
carr 63
harrington 60
ramsey 72
vick 63
pennington 128
couch 73
mcnabb 60
smith 56
culpepper 0
mcnown 67
31 total QBs selected.
6 posted an 80+ QB rating (ryan, flacco, cutler, rivers, roethlisberger, and pennington). 6/31 = 19%
All have developed into above average QBs. 6/31 = 19%
Of those, only four had significant playing time as rookies (Pennington and Rivers didn’t start until their third year in the league). 4/31 = 13%
7 posted ratings in the 70’s. (leinart, campbell, palmer, leftwich, grossman, ramsey, couch). 7/31 = 23%
Of those, only two have developed into average or above average QBs (palmer, campbell). 2/31 = 6%
Of those, 6 had significant playing time as rookies (grossman the exception). 6/31 = 19%
Of all of the QBs taken in the first round in the expansion era, 13 have developed into above average QBs (ryan, flacco, cutler, rodgers, campbell, manning, rivers, roethlisberger, palmer, vick, pennington, mcnabb and culpepper). 13/31 = 42%
Of those 13, cutler was traded and leads the league in INTs, rodgers didn’t see significant play time until his third year, campbell is on the hot seat, vick is a backup and a felon, pennington was traded and looks to be done, culpepper is a backup for the Lions.
Those 13 QBs have won a grand total of 3 of the last 10 superbowls (two for Roethlisberger, one for Manning). Tom Brady, a sixth round pick, Kurt Warner, a former Arena League player, and Brad Johnson, a 9th round pick combined to win 5. :)
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And over all that the point stands: no QB in this era has successfully started a significant portion of his rookie year outside of the first round.
So if you’re going to pick a QB, you have to take the chance in the first round or else live with another QB while you develop the non-1st draftee.
I don’t want to do that.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it so important to throw someone in there next year? We took Couch #1 and he put up a 70+ QB rating his rookie year. What good did it do?
Build the bottom half of the roster, then the top and then grab a QB (if we need one). To do otherwise is to repeat the mistakes of our recent past.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because I don’t like losing. Or sucking. I think if Quinn is our QB next year, we’ll do a lot of both.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure that if we don’t take a quarterback this year it’ll be because there are better, less risky players available, and not because the coaches and front office love to lose.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You need to change your expectations then, or sit out next year as a fan; the Browns are going to suck no matter who the quarterback is.
by gahnki on Dec 23, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
While that’s probable, it’s not necessarily the case. Honestly, did you think the Browns would win 10 games in 2007 in August of 2007?
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would advise amending expectations as well. To hope for a QB to be drafted and then expect immediate success if asking too much.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 23, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t expect success. I would have thought saying I thought us sucking next year is probable would have at least implied as such.
Expecting success and wanting to be in a better position to garner it are different.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you think DA was going to the Pro Bowl that Feburary?
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would have banked on about 30 players on that roster ahead of him.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because I don’t like losing. Or sucking. I think if Quinn is our QB next year, we’ll do a lot of both.
Fair enough as an assertion. Perhaps you should have said that you felt that way above, just so it was clear where your bias was.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What’s worse is his shortcomings seem to be more related to accuracy than mental errors. Watching him, I’ve not seem him make a large number of what I would consider “rookie mistakes”. What I have seen is him missing throws to all areas of the field, especially mid and deep passes. This is just lay observation, but I’m not seeing the type of QB from whom a large improvement can be expected through experience. It’s hard to coach accuracy.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes, sort of. Maybe I just prefer the brutally honest boiled down version of your opinion!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There you go. Entitle this “Brady Quinn sucks: What to do at QB” and your bias is 100% clear!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 10:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if I would call it bias, until Quinn shows us differently, I think it is fact.
This is coming from a Quinn supporter.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brady Quinn sucks.
If you add ‘so far’, I’d agree that this is a fact.
….I don’t like losing. Or sucking. I think if Quinn is our QB next year, we’ll do a lot of both.
Now that statement to me is much more opinion, implying that BQ can’t become even competent enough not to destroy a team, much less really contribute to one.
Since we’re talking bias, I want to like BQ but won’t lose any sleep if Holmgren decides enough is enough and trades him to the Raiders in the off season.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 24, 2009 4:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Minor modifier to my statement of bias: If DA stays on the roster and BQ goes, I’ll go route for Buffalo.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 24, 2009 4:38 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Me too. DA is awful.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 24, 2009 9:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Minor modifier to my statement of bias: If DA stays on the roster and BQ goes, I’ll go route for Buffalo.
+1
by emily522 on Dec 24, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha yeah, as you can tell by me only mentioning him as “irrelevant” I agree with this sentiment.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hilarious. also, save room for me on the buffalo express.
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 27, 2009 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You fair-weathered fans, go root for Pittsburgh :-) Kidding, of course!
PS- I just threw up in my mouth a little.
by shep615 on Dec 30, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree. I like BQ too, but if he got traded I wouldn’t be very upset.
by emily522 on Dec 24, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was just trying to be funny. I explain why I think he’s unlikely to improve much above. Basically, accuracy rarely improves drastically.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not a bias. A bias is an inability to make an objective decision, but objectively the facts show that Quinn hasn’t been very good so far.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 23, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed as above, that factually BQ sucks so far. (Sad but true.)
Bias doesn’t bar rational thought, though. From Merriam-Webster: “an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment” Bias can just lead you toward certain ways of thinking. For example I’m clearly biased toward the Browns, but that doesn’t mean I can’t rationally examine their odds against this week’s opponent.
Let’s not argue semantics, though. It’s probably trivial, but I just like it when people are as clear as possible about where they are coming from with pieces like this. Reading danvail’s (perfectly defensible) statements later in this thread made me go back and reread the original piece with a different and probably somewhat suspicious eye….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 24, 2009 4:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares about 2010 if we get a franchise QB who turns out to be Brett Favre or Drew Brees?
Look, we already are bad, I would easily sacrifice 2010 to find a pro bowl QB.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I care about winning in 2010. It’s not everything, true, but why throw away a year in the NFL? Any given Sunday, right? I just really love to see the Browns win.
Regardless, if you could do better than the 2-3% odds a second or third round QB draftee has of becoming a good QB, then yeah I’d be more comfortable.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think we’d be throwing it away, exactly. We’d be trying to win like the 2000 Ravens or Pennington-era Dolphins, with a QB who would just “not lose” the game. Meanwhile we could be building our defense team around the QB. We need another young lineman or two, we clearly need some “playmakers” on offense, and I wouldn’t be upset with drafting any position on D.
At any point in time if we begin getting good/great play from a QB, we will make a bigtime jump in terms of W-L record. Whether that jump is from 4-12 to 8-8/9-7 or from 8-8 to 12-4, I guess I really don’t care. We are never going to get too deep in the playoffs without a great team around the QB, so as long as we are going in the right direction, I don’t feel the pressure to find a QB right now, more the pressure to find the right QB at some point.
I can’t really disagree that QBs should be drafted in the first (unless you already have “the guy” and are looking for a backup/potential future starter i.e. the Patriots). CBs look the same way to me; just not many good ones come from the later rounds. If you are going to draft a guy, you might as well sell out and draft the guy you love, not the guy who might be OK.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If bradford somehow someway fall to the browns in the second, pull the trigger.
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 8:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
forgot locker isn’t declaring. never mind he definitely won’t make it.
by Rocland on Dec 22, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We have to take a QB with our first pick. From what I have seen all Brady has shown me is that he is a capable back-up. And the NFL has become a Quarterback driven league. I was on the build a great defense wagon, but after hearing Brian Billick on the radio today my mind has changed. He said that defensive minded team, with a great running game and a QB that managed the game, could not win the super bowl in todays NFL. So I think we need to go out there and get a Clausen, Bradford, or Mallet.
by OSUMoneyball on Dec 22, 2009 9:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
He said that defensive minded team, with a great running game and a QB that managed the game, could not win the super bowl in todays NFL.
Billick is a dumb ass. Someone should show him the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl.
Eli’s QB rating the year they won the Super Bowl was 73.9.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that is the biggest piece of anecdotal evidence to crush that fact, potentially ever. Brady and NE’s offense tore the whole league up statistically, and yet, didn’t win. In addition to being beaten by Eli’s modest QB rating as you point out.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that the NFL is now a passing league.
But for Billick to say there is no way a team can win any other way is just plain foolish.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely agree. Plus, you still need a good team around the QB to win in the playoffs.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea of finding a vet to play backup and giving Quinn at least the first eight games of 2010 – but that to me means giving him first string full time and no QB derby in camp. See what he can do with a decent off-season and a solid veteran receiver (Stallworth if he stays or a FA).
I’m not sure yet whether his problem is accuracy or consistency. That nice throw that he had to Moore looked pretty good and was placed right in between the defenders. I actually thought some of his longer throws looked a bit wobbly not because of technique or arm strength, but rather because of uncertainty. But that’s just my opinion formed from what the cameraman shows me.
by JustBob on Dec 22, 2009 9:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe someone with a better trained eye for talent can correct me, but it seems to me like Quinn has played fairly consistently the last few games despite wide gap in results. I just see accuracy issues.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 8:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The accuracy issues are definitely there. The problem is, I don’t think I can pin them all on Quinn.
Sometimes his footwork gets bad, and you can definitely see the accuracy go when that happens. That’s on Quinn.
But there are other problems with the offense. A lot of the time, you will see Quinn throw to nowhere, and you don’t know if the WR missed the read or what happened. Then, on some of the other throws that only miss by a foot, you don’t know if Quinn expected the guy to work his stick route out and he didn’t or if Quinn missed the throw.
I remember a few to Evan Moore where it just looked like “chemistry”. Quinn expected him to go somewhere he didn’t, or to get there faster, etc. Other times, I am screaming at the TV because the deep ball was thrown 12 yards out of bounds.
Make no mistake, some of the throws are on BQ. Probably not as many as people think, though. I think the real question is whether or not he can develop some chemistry and get his completion rate up to an acceptable rate or not. I am willing to give him all the reps next year while we build the rest of the team to find out.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
….you don’t know if Quinn expected the guy to work his stick route out and he didn’t or if Quinn missed the throw.
Great point, and something I’ve been trying to determine all year, along with whether our receivers are getting open and not being properly targeted or are lacking the ability to get open at all.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 24, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and most receivers on other teams can make good catches and help the QB. Our receivers tip should-be-easy catches to the other team.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 25, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really doubt there would be much of a way for any fan to determine this for sure. The NFL zooms in much more than college (usually) so you get so little beyond (some) stems of the WR’s routes, it is hard to tell what is going on, or who was open/not.
Sometimes they go back and show you the “Madden” angle or some of the secondary, but that is pretty rare.
But even WITH the film, sometimes it is hard to know what the coaching points are.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right about the game angles as shown of course, and I’m sure I’ve complained about that here before. Add that to the “Who made a wrong read?” and “Who expected a different route?” questions, and there’s still a lot of mystery left when evaluating the passing effort!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 27, 2009 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course not every throw is on him, but he just so rarely hits the mid to deep pass that it’s very difficult for me not to pin it on the QB.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am very hopeful that Holmgren will be able to identify a QB talent for us either through free agency/trade or very late round. I hope we won’t need to go for one early in the draft.
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 10:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
But where does that leave us in 2010? Look at the list of FA QBs. Who on there would you want? I’m also not aware of anyone looking to trade away a solid young QB ala Schaub a few years ago.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 8:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is you´re looking at the shiny baubles, starting credentials.
Do you know what a Rex Grossman, Billy Volek, Sage Rosenfels, Kerry Collins, David Carr could do for you, why they´re so quaint and pretty on some clubs respective depth charts? Because they are dangerous, given the right situation they would have you in the win column in no time. Why doesn´t it happen? Because they´d be journeymen with no real constituency, they would have to absolutely blow everyone away, and the wishing well in that regard is slim pickings in the NFL.
by mooncamping on Dec 23, 2009 9:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do wonder if there’s some truth to this. You look at someone like JaMarcus Awful, and you wonder if the investment made in ego and treasure is what keeps him on the field more than anything else. That said, buying the wheat out of other people’s chaff is a challenging strategy.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my god RDC, he got you too. first Dorn, now you. i go to sleep fearful tonight.
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 23, 2009 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Come to the dark side, DN. We have chocolate. :)
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 24, 2009 4:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no dark side of the moon. Matter of fact, it’s all dark.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 24, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
…That’s not true. If it was dark, you wouldn’t see it. It’s only all dark one day of the month.
Simple logic…
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 24, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I hate to do it I would rather stick with Quinn this year and address other needs with our early picks. However if he’s willing to give up on Quinn I hope it doesn’t involve us having to use a high pick to get a QB this 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 23, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There are names on this list that I would not mind signing to back up Quinn, and that’s strictly back up. If Quinn doesn’t work or if he gets injured again we have a veteran that we turn to and we can begin to assess the next group of free agents or look to the 2011 draft.
This is all predicated on my belief/desire to not use our 1st pick on a QB because I believe/hope that we will be in a position to draft a player at another position, and that we can be certain of their impact and I’m not sold on any on the Qbs in the draft this year. I think it would be a mistake to take a QB early just because we want first round talent at the QB position.
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 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, but I’m talking about FAs that can come in and replace Quinn. Only Pennington stands out there. If we signed him and drafted a QB high in the second (one that was worthy of that pick, of course) then I wouldn’t be upset.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your rationale is a chain of speculations. I´m certain that you are fraudulent towards your real beliefs in achieving the end results you desire. You have a premise (Brady Quinn was our predicament) and result (We can only get a good QB in the first round), your path from that premise to your result (No good QB´s in FA, statistics show 2nd and 3rd round QB´s suck, whoever we bring in has to battle in camp, ect…) is extremely shaky.
The round that you draft a guy in is irrelevant, you start with the player, the rest is happenstance, either you´ve done your woodshedding or not. You make it look like every choice we have is a predicament, and that a measly ranking can form the potential of a player.
We will get a QB we desire, nothing more nothing less. And if Cinderella doesn´t pan out, we will continue to do so, until the shoe fits.
There are a dozen or more QB´s that could outplay Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson, we will look at before we feel compelled to draft a QB.
But if we do draft a QB there are no compellants and no restrictors. We´ll make a list of preferences to include every guy on two legs that took a snap in college, and let that guide us.
by mooncamping on Dec 23, 2009 6:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The round that you draft a guy in is irrelevant… if we do draft a QB there are no compellants and no restrictors. We´ll make a list of preferences to include every guy on two legs that took a snap in college, and let that guide us.
Except that those pesky NFL scouts and FOs tend to be able to vet players pretty well, leaving us with ample evidence that the chances of us finding an immediately impactful quarterback beyond the top 15 picks or so is virtually nill.
We will get a QB we desire, nothing more nothing less. And if Cinderella doesn´t pan out, we will continue to do so, until the shoe fits.
That’s 27 words without saying a single thing relevant to the conversation.
There are a dozen or more QB´s that could outplay Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson, we will look at before we feel compelled to draft a QB.
Which ones? Which are simultaneously a long term solution and a short term improvement?
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 8:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There is also ample indicators, that the NFL will grow to 40 teams soon. Multiply the eight extra teams times a 53 man roster and you get 424 athletes who will have a steady job very very soon. Add the retirees and failures leaving the NFL, and you can begin to imagine why mooncamping warned months ago, that we may already be in on a run for the roses.
Cinderella, shminderella, you know what I mean, bring Ă©m in push Ă©m out, until we find our next Bernie Kosar.
I won´t list them, I´ve done so on several occasions. My favorite, if there is no glimmer of hope for Jay Cutler somehow finding his way to Cleveland, is Jared Zabransky. The jury is still out on him, he hasn´t shown what he can do in the NFL. He is my run and gun favorite.
by mooncamping on Dec 23, 2009 9:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
David Carr is still the hottest thing I´ve ever seen in a pocket and out of it, he can literally freeze a defense when he breaks out. I am absolutely certain that all you have to do is enable him with a complementary offense and game plan.
For all intents and purposes, I believe Chris Pizzotti should have been a prodigy this year, this guy broke all kinds of records at Harvard. Come on, a Harvard man that is a stellar athlete, what´s wrong with these scouts?
Your talking accuracy, Rex Grossman is your man. He was raw when he played in the Super Bowl, he has since perfected his technique, and hasn´t been able to show it.
Billy Volek and Sage Rosenfels are proven Come Back Kids, they lost out to the vetting techniques you described.
There are probably a few others, but mooncamping is notoriously sloppy on his homework.
by mooncamping on Dec 23, 2009 9:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To rehash a bit, I know what you were trying to say.
Odds. And based on what you seem to believe, the odds are slim, that we can make a star at QB.
We´ll just have to do everything in our power to improve the odds.
The annual run on indisputable talent is tedious, and we will no longer participate. Lets have some courage.
by mooncamping on Dec 23, 2009 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Listen, there are a lot of very experienced, very smart groups that spend inordinate amounts of time and effort finding football players and rating their ability. A simple of review of history demonstrates that to find a rookie QB that can be an effective starter, you have to go for first round talent.
If you are of the opinion that rookie starters can be found anywhere, then go apply that train of thought to every other position and leave me the first round pick for a QB.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where do you come up with these opinions? How would you know Grossman has perfected his technique? He had three pass attempts this year. One was picked off. You’d think if he was this master of accuracy you claim he’d be able to avoid getting picked in three pass attempts.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had three pass attempts this year. One was picked off.
Good laugh.
by skipkirk on Dec 23, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t waste your time.
It will save you time and brain cells.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you a PR agent for washed up quarterbacks?
by gahnki on Dec 23, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he is actually David Carr.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You think if we repeat it enough it might prove true?
mooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarrmooncampingisDavidCarr
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not going to pretend the first portion of this post is comprehensible, but as to Zabransky – maybe you know something others don’t but he was unable to stick on the roster of both the Texans and the Steelers, and is third string in the CFL. Forgive me if I don’t see him as a viable 2010 starter and long term solution.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
….you can begin to imagine why mooncamping warned months ago, that we may already be in on a run for the roses.
When you talk about yourself in the third person moon, I smile inside.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep disqualifying yourselves from relevant discussions, maybe someday you can call it a losing strategy.
by mooncamping on Dec 24, 2009 7:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely fortune cookie worthy, moon. I’m honored. Merry Christmas if the Russian scientists programmed you to celebrate same!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 24, 2009 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
how many QBs careers do we have to destroy before we stick with one?
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 23, 2009 8:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Your handle is degrading your credibility on this point.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ya umm i don’t think that fry was expected to be as good as some of the others but nice try ‘degrading my credibility’
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 23, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was tongue-in-cheek, much as I think his handle is.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Glad to hear it. Missed the comedy I think. He’s got the benefit of the “haha” to help out….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah my bad, it wasn’t very clear in type
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We no longer destroy players, to have made it onto the Cleveland Browns roster is a distinction. Our discards will be treasures.
by mooncamping on Dec 23, 2009 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if anybody else wrote this i’d ask if they were joking… just like Braylon and Shaun Smith and that dude we gave to Carolina, already forgot his name… real treasures they are.
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 23, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What about Gradkowski? (Heh.)
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he beat the steelers this year. that seems to be enough for some these days…
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 23, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that’s good enough for me!!!
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 24, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No 1st round QB
The Browns need to many things to risk drafting a QB in the 1st round. Especially since there really might not be a “franchise” qb to draft that high. Clausen isn’t in Todd McShay’s top 20 and is pretty much another Quinn. Not very accurate downfield. Bradford is the biggest possibility, but is obviously injury prone. Just to much of a stretch to take one of these guys. You can get a Hiller or LeFevour in the 3-4th rounds. I like Derrick Morgan. Stand him up and he will be a monster at OLB. Put him opposite Wimbley and the pass rush explodes. Gerald McCoy or Eric Berry would be much needed too.
by A_James on Dec 23, 2009 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I want Bradford at this point, but we’ll have to see how the next four months shakes out to see whether he’s worth the 3-6th pick. There will always be other needs to address, but in this league if you don’t have a good QB, you just aren’t good.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t touch Bradford before the middle of the second round. To many serious injuries to risk the kind of money a top ten QB commands (not to mention passing on a less risky pick who can fill a need).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whether or not a specific player is worthy of our pick or what our options for trading into a spot where he might make more sense is something we can’t know yet. But if there is a QB that fits the bill at, say #5, it probably makes sense to pull the trigger.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In Bradfords case we do know. Serious shoulder injury. I’m not willing to bet a top ten pick on the hope that his recovery is Brees like. That’s an extra level of risk above and beyond the ‘will he develop’ issues all draft eligible QBs have.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s fine – I’m not trying to get into a player specific debate (beyond maybe Quinn). I’m just trying to make the case that we may have to draft a QB high if one is there.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But how can you advocate that we may have to draft a QB high if one is there and then not want to get into a player specific debate. If you think we have to get a QB high its imperative to know which ones we are targeting.
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 23, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The top 10 selections get paid money that it is better to be safe than sorry. Going for the home run make work sometimes, but with the amount of money at play, I would prefer a safer pick. In my opinion, QBs are the least safe position to draft.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 23, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gerrard Warren, Courtney Brown, Braylon Edwards…
Also, we worry about money and the salary cap so much, but why? When has the salary cap been an issue for us? We were last year the 7th largest market in the NFL. We may be going uncapped. The Browns make tons of money.
This isn’t MLB.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My understanding is that the team was at the salary cap in 2008. A lot of teams are at or near the salary cap right now. It may not matter next year during the uncapped years, but salary cap flexibility remains important. There is a reason teams love trading down in the first round, the only reasonable explanation is that saving money matters. No team would trade down otherwise, when you could have your pick of the best remaining players.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 24, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, but there’s so much that can be done to promote flexibility. We haven’t needed to maneuver at all. I’m confident that we’d be fine working in even #1 pick QB money without sacrificing additional adds – even with the cap.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WR is one of the least safe positions to draft that high as well.
Look, Suh is a no-brainer, Berry is a no-brainer. I don’t see a QB that I can say that about. And I like Bradford.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but we probably won’t be able to get either. Maybe Berry, but if it’s between a franchise QB and a safety (even a hall of fame safety)… it’s just hard to pass the QB up.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But is it between a franchise QB and a possible Hall of Fame safety?
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 25, 2009 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Up to Holmgren and team to make that call, I’m not scout.
by danvail on Dec 26, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Believe me, money per se is not an issue. Spreading it around honestly is.
by mooncamping on Dec 24, 2009 7:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think the ravens have a great qb and their considered good
Vote for Fry for best QB of the decade, but I voted for Couch
by charliefryfanhaha on Dec 23, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Flacco had a rating of 80 his rookie year, and 90 this year. He’s doing quite well, and I wish he was our QB. Quinn is in his third year of development and has a 67 rating.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With two rookie wide recievers, a second year wide receiver, a practice squad TE and a suspect run game. Flacco landed on a team with McGahee, Rice, Mcclain, Heap and a pair of veteran (if unspectacular) receivers.
Quinn is on a roster that’s been torn down. Flacco was the final piece.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A suspect run game that just posted 300+ yards of rushing while Quinn couldn’t do ANYTHING against a poor pass defense that had 8-9 guys in the box? That suspect run game?
I mean sure it’s one game but let’s be real here, if there was ever an opportunity to put up some decent midrange passes it was Sunday.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure there are differences, but we probably have more talent on the line, and like I said in the original piece what really worries me isn’t as much the numbers as the way Quinn plays.
I see him with a solid grip of the offense, but seemingly without the accuracy to succeed despite that. This is why I think he’s unlikely to get much better, and why I’d rather see him replaced sooner rather than later.
Regardless, if you disagree that Quinn needs to be replaced, that’s fine. I grant that my assessment is amateur speculation and nothing more. It’s the offseason strategy that intrigues me should Holmgren have the same opinion.
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I trust Holmgren’s eye for QBs a lot. He’ll find us one. I don’t think he will think he needs to find a guy in the first round this year, I think he will get us guys who he likes regardless of where or when we get them, or when they will be able to contribute.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think there’s a distinct possibility that he goes QB in round one, and at this point that would shock and upset the Cleveland fan base. I’m of course not saying that I know he will go QB, just that the chance he does is greater than most Browns fans think it should be.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it would be shocking at all. Everyone has just seen DA and BQ both have below average seasons and it isn’t clear that either should hang on to a starting job.
I just don’t think it needs to happen this year, as we’ve discussed elsewhere.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely think Holmgren could sell a first round QB pick to the fans come next draft. He’s going to have some good will coming in fresh, and like rufio says, it’s not like our guys have been world beaters. I’m very wary of the idea, but I wouldn’t find it jaw dropping either.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 27, 2009 2:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention the Ravens have a much better O-line
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 24, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Case in point to build other positions 1st.
by NM Dawg on Dec 26, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So you want to draft Sam Bradford, and you wish Flacco was our QB.
As I stated above, you must be in an advanced state of denial, to lie to yourself like that.
by mooncamping on Dec 24, 2009 7:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope your mind really works this way. It makes me smile.
by danvail on Dec 24, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t mind taking a shot at LeFevour in the 5th round or so. From what I have seen from him (not a lot), I think he could be pretty good. But I’m not a scout, so what do I know?
by emily522 on Dec 23, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where was the option for signing a journeyman QB?
A journeyman QB will push Quinn harder and be a better backup to Quinn (if he doesn’t win the job) than a rookie would be.
In any case, we have already seen that Quinn is injury-prone.
by palcal on Dec 23, 2009 8:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Filed that under “other”. It’s a valid thought. Maybe Pennington?
by danvail on Dec 23, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
QB is pretty far down the list if you ask me.
I voted for the 2nd-3rd round just on value alone.
I think that Holmgren and his offensive staff should have a full off-season to work with Quinn. To ask Holmgren to make a call on Quinn based on just looking at him from the outside is a little too quick for my taste.
After all we are talking, in all probability, a top five pick this season. San Diego made this same mistake when they drafted Rivers a few seasons ago. Shouldn’t we make sure that we have fully evaluated Quinn before we use another first rounder on him? With the complete lack of talent that we have at so many positions, at this point in time why waste a draft pick on a position in which we still know very little about?
All of this being said with Holmgren, and I assuming his type of offensive attack, I am starting to like Colt McCoy more and more.
He is very accurate, has wheels to move around the pocket and seems to have a strong enough arm to work in a WCO.
If McCoy is there with one of the Browns third round draft choices, I would be very pleased to add him at that point in time.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 23, 2009 11:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I believe the Chargers drafted Eli Manning, the Giants drafted Rivers and they traded because one of them wouldn’t play for the city that drafted him. I may be incorrect though.
The sporting gods hate Cleveland, they give us false hopes, then yank it out from under us like a tablecloth.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 24, 2009 2:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s true, but my point remains.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 3:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Essentially the Chargers drafted Rivers.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really like Colt McCoy too! But from what I’ve read, there’s a ton of doubt as to whether or not he can be a good QB in the NFL. If he was available in the 3rd, I’d definitely be fine with picking him up.
by emily522 on Dec 24, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No Colt McCoy. His stats are inflated because of the spread O he runs and his arm is pathetic (even worse than Max Hall’s).
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 24, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
His stats are inflated because he is Texas’ offense.
Take McCoy off that team and they are Holiday Bowl bound.
I’m not saying that he is a for sure answer for the Browns, but I would love to give Holmgren and his offensive staff the chance to work with him.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would much rather have Holmgren and his staff evaluate him.
I think that has been something we have been missing since we came back to the league. Whenever I watch the draft I always get the impression that we are the kid that didn’t study looking over everyone’s shoulder for the answers on the test and unfortunately we seem to always be sitting behind the dumb kid. Last year, even though I wasn’t overly excited or in awe of our draft, I did get the impression that we had at least did our own work.
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 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I could pick one thing for next season is this:
Let a QB be the starter for the whole season. If it is Quinn, fine by me. If we draft a QB and sign a holdover, then let the rook sit out all season.
Just give us one season of no QB back and forth.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 25, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would hope that we can do that as well. I have a feeling that we will be improved in every other area, (not great, maybe not even good, but improved). With general improvement of the team and if Harrison can be a first line back for us we should be able to endure some struggles from the QB position much better than we have this 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 25, 2009 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am with this. Let’s be sure one way or the other. Give him all the reps he wants, let the receivers know that if they want to work on chemistry with someone, he’s the guy. Whoever that guy is, pick him and stick by him.
I feel like I defended Mangini’s (in)decision at the time, but am willing to admit that it was horrible for the Browns.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think every Browns fan feels this way, but if you have a QB with a 40 QB rating after eight games… we’ll all be calling for his benching.
As much as we hate the back-and-forth, what we’re really hungry for is a QB worth trusting.
by danvail on Dec 26, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Brady Quinn has a 40 QB rating after 8 games, I will be happy. Not because we will suck, but because once and for all we will know one way or another if Brady Quinn is worth keeping.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jordan Shipley is Texas’ offense. That team could still make a BCS game without him.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 25, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No possible way.
Crabtree is and was 100x the WR Shipley is and that got Texas Tech a trip to a lower bowl.
Very rarely does a WR carry a team. Shipley isn’t in that group.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 25, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas has a very good defense. That is what separates them from TTech last year
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 25, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Regardless of who is or isn’t Texas’ offense, schemes only do so much. They get you good matchups, they can give you easier reads, and they can highlight your strengths.
But players make plays. McCoy is accurate. The scheme can’t hit 70+% of your passes for you. The kid can throw a ball on target, with great accuracy a high percentage of the time. Scouts love to drool over arm strength, but I am not so high on it. Arm strength needs to be good enough. Accuracy needs to be great. There are more legit NFL QBs with great accuracy and not great arm strength than the other way around.
That said, I am not sure McCoy’s arm is strong enough. Texas’ scheme is based on a lot of those shorter routes, and McCoy isn’t often in a situation where he has to drill a ball in there.
Still, the only real stats I think you look at for a QB would be completion%, YPA, TD:INT ratio, and starts. No scheme is going to take care of the ball for you, put the football where it needs to go for you, or give you experience. And even with that, they’re like 40 times; do they validate what you see on tape? Do they validate the kid’s scouting report? They can be a useful tool, but you never ever take someone based on those stats alone.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Big arm + No accuracy= JaMarcus Russell and DA.
by emily522 on Dec 27, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty good Accuracy + No arm = not good either
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 27, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fan of ND + Yankees = Wow. Just, wow.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 27, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you are still talking about McCoy, he has much better than pretty good accuracy.
He has a chance to break the NCAA record for completion percentage.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 27, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but no arm ≠average arm that scouts question
by rufio on Dec 28, 2009 2:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing I want to see is McCoy throwing downfield. He didn’t/doesn’t at Texas, and I am not sure if he can or not. Yes, the WCO is traditionally about quick, short passes, but you need to be able to throw the deep comeback in the NFL if that’s what they are giving you.
by rufio on Dec 24, 2009 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve seen him attempt to a few times, but it is just a weak floating pass.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 24, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am very excited to see McCoy against Saban.
Saban will take away the short stuff and make Colt beat him deep. Saban is a slimy douche, but the man can coach defense.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
‘Bama will be a big test for McCoy. That’ll probably make or break if I’d want to take a chance with him.
by emily522 on Dec 24, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that if he destroys Bama, like I think they will, he could jump into the first round.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 25, 2009 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And if the Easter Bunny kills Santa, then Christmas would be a lot different. It won’t happen.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 25, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas has no shot?
You’re drinking the SEC kool-aid.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 25, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, Texas just isn’t that good. You are drinking the Big12 koolaid that i had last year.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 25, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was drinking the Big 12 kool-aid last year as well.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 25, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Big 12 was very good last year. It’s not nearly as good this season.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Conference strength doesn’t mean Texas can or cannot play. I think they have a shot, particularly if they can slow Ingram enough to get the ball back. If McElroy(?) is throwing like he was against Florida, no team out there has a chance against Bama.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that Texas can stop Ingram. They will make Bama pass to win it.
I think Texas wins it by 10.
I still believe that if there was a playoff, TCU would be champs.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you think that Texas has no shot then you must have a very short memory.
Nobody thought Ohio State had a shot in the ’02 national championship against Miami.
Nobody thought Texas had a shot in the ’05 championship against USC.
Nobody thought Florida had a shot in the ’06 championship against OSU.
Anything can happen after a long layoff when one team hears how great they are for a month and the other teams hears how they have no chance to win.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Florida would beat OSU in 06
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 26, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The best part of that is ESPN was doing a running segment the weeks before asking if USC was the greatest college football team of all time.
Mark May said they were.
Ahhhh…… Sweet.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, this is the reason I had Texas. As soon as the media does something stupid like that, it is the beginning of the end. That and Vince Young was one of the best college players of the decade.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 26, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? only 2 recs? I expected 50
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 27, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Last night Mark was asked who would win: Florida or Cincy. His response went something like this:
“Florida. You know why? Tim Tebow. He wants to win his last game as a Gator and he’s a winner.”
Yeah, Mark. I doubt that Tony Pike or any of those seniors on the Cincy roster want to win. This guy is an idiot.
by emily522 on Dec 28, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, I didn’t mean that literally nobody thought those teams would win, only that they weren’t given much of a shot by most fans and analysts.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If there is one coach who won’t let his players think they will walk in and jog away with the game, it’s Saban. I still think it will at least be a close game.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would have said the same thing about Tressel, too.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know what’s so funny . . . Tressel had already won 5 national championships before that game. The man knows how to win in big games.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not anymore. He does know how to pick out good sweater-vests though.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 26, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’m sure he forgot how to coach over the last three years.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 26, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As they get older, some coaches don’t do as good. See; Paterno, Bowden, Tuberville, Fullmer
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 27, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tressel is not that old.
I know you’re young and all you probably can remember is the last 3 or 4 years, but there was college football before 2006. I hate when people overreact to recent events and assume anything that happened earlier is irrelevent. Anyone who thinks Tressel doesn’t know how to coach or can’t win big games is an idiot.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who thinks Tressel doesn’t know how to coach or can’t win big games is an idiot.
Very moderate, BB.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 27, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moderate?
The guy has won FIVE national titles, so I think that’s a correct statement.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You really think calling someone an idiot is appropriate?
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 27, 2009 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just so long as you don’t call him a puss or a tranny, apparently.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 27, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t faggot A OK as well? Someone should start a FAQ!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 27, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha.
I tried to start a FAQ, but ‘twas deleted. If I get some time in the next couple of days, I’ve got a good idea for another greasemonkey script…
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 28, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All I’m saying is that the last few years he hasn’t won a whole lot of big games
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 27, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s true. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know how to coach, or he somehow forgot how to beat good teams.
I’m just tired of the media and so many fans piling on Tressel and OSU, as if going 10-2 or 11-1 and losing in a BCS bowl game to a great team is a bad thing. Most college teams would kill for that kind of record. Yet somehow that makes Tressel a bad coach all of a sudden.
I know you’re young, but you need to remember that football existed before 2006 and those results do matter. Tressel’s teams beat what most people thought was an unbeatable Miami team in ’03. They absolutely destroyed a Quinn-led ND team (which should have beat USC) in ’05. They beat two #2 teams in ’06, including the defending champion Texas. And, at YSU, the man won FOUR national championships in a playoff system that required winning four playoff games each time.
So the man knows how to coach big games; it’s just hard to win big games because, by definition, you’re playing another great team. Nobody is going to win them all.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All I’m talking about is the last few years. I never said anything before that.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 27, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, as I said, he didn’t all of a sudden forget how to coach.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 27, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes methods become less succesful in different years of football.
Or you get an overrated receiver and play him at QB.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 27, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ohio State is a decent OC away from winning big games again.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 28, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure that Jim Tressel knows more about coaching football than you do.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2009 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said I knew more.
Daboll knows more about football than you
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 28, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Daboll knows more about football than you
Low blow!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 28, 2009 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s a terrible receiver smart stuff.
He’s a long strider.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 27, 2009 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think if he worked on receiver he could be a good one.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 28, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
paterno has 2 big ten titles in the past 5 years and has played in bowl games every one of those years. i’d hardly say he hasn’t been good.
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 27, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, look. Coach Tress remembered how to win in big games again!
/sarcasm
That was an idiotic notion by TRSS. Sometimes, you simply aren’t the best team on the field. Coaches don’t “forget” how to win big games. There’s no big game quality that some coaches have over others..maybe a preparation quality, but all big time coaches prepare well. And Tress is a big time coach.
by gahnki on Jan 1, 2010 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
TRSS will then retort that Oregon is not a good team and therefore this bowl win will not count, due to the lack of competition. He will then cite that if ND had played them, the score would’ve been 77 – 0. Also, Clausen single – handedly played all 22 positions on offense and defense on his own.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 1, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, I wouldn’t but I don’t expect to be taken seriously when I say anything that isn’t positive about OSU’s “god”
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 2, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not about that at all. I hope you would know that, but if not that shows you still have much to learn.
The point is that a coach with a long history of succes doesn’t suddenly “forget” how to coach in big games. It doesn’t matter what school he coaches for, I would say the same thing for anyone else.
You know, it is possible for OSU fans to be objective about their team and their coach. I think I’ve shown that I can do that.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 2, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was such a sweet victory. Lots of cheering and high-fives at my house over that one.
Guess who ordered their Rose Bowl Champs tshirt 5 minutes after the game ended? Haha.
by emily522 on Jan 2, 2010 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That defense. Wow.
Before the game Kelly had an interview and he said that Ohio State would not be able to keep up with the speed of the Oregon offense.
I guess the Silver Bullets had a different opinion.
Owned.
P.S.- Thad, Cam, and Hines all need to come back next season!
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 2, 2010 1:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course. I was hoping TRSS would have been smart enough to realize that but I see he still has much to learn. He needs to stop listening to the media so much, because most of them are so quick to call a coach a “genuis” or an “idiot” based on whatever has happened recently.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 2, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no such thing as “knowing how to win big games.”
Either that, or every ND coach for the last 15 years has forgotten how to coach football, period.
by gahnki on Dec 26, 2009 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Could have been better, but not a bad insult. I agree that Davie, Weis, and especially Willingham all sucked.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 27, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is, Tressel’s teams have sort of backed in to most of those “big games” you are talking about.
Florida, yeah, we dropped the ball. No question.
In the LSU game, we were a 2 loss team in the NC game, and only backed in because of the absurd losses of WVU to Pitt and whoever was in the Big12 messing up bigtime. We weren’t supposed to even be in that game, and we could have won it if Spitler or Homan (forget which one it was) blocks that kick instead of being an idiot. Tressel can’t block kicks.
Last year we leapfrogged teams ranked higher than us because bowl people knew OSU fans travel. We were one Anderson Russel missed tackle away from winning that game. Tressel can’t make tackles.
We won at Texas in 06, and have beaten Penn St. in night games that I would classify as “big”, and regardless of how bad they are, beating michigan is always big for the Buckeyes.
Yes, we are hurting for bowl wins. No, it isn’t because Tressel “can’t win big games” or because the southern states have something magical in the water that makes their athletes faster.
by rufio on Dec 28, 2009 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
whoever was in the Big12 messing up bigtime
that would be Missouri, the one shot at doing something great. Problem was they had to face Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship, a team that was clearly better than them.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 28, 2009 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But didn’t Oklahoma have a chance to get in the NC by winning the week before? I thought there were 2 teams in the Big 12 who had to go down before OSU had a shot at the NC.
In any event, we still get put in “big games” when we don’t have our best teams.
by rufio on Dec 28, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I forget how it worked exactly, but Oklahoma had 2 losses at that point which was 1 behind both Missouri and Kansas.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 28, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look for tons of MOFC coverage, 8 in the box.
by rufio on Dec 26, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here is a call for help. Can´t we get some people not all cozy with the losing mentality to participate in these meaningful discussions.
This place is full of people in outright mutiny. They´re attempting to run the gambit in terms of compulsory fact finding.
by mooncamping on Dec 24, 2009 7:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
i’d love to meet you in person to find out just how crazy you really are.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 24, 2009 8:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe you meant “run the gamut” there, moon.
Sadly, anyone not somewhat inured to the ways of losing would have been driving into psychosis by this organization years ago. Be glad we still have the enthusiasm to participate at all. I trust that despite these challenges, your administration will still strive to drive us toward the shimmering glory of the Browns legacy….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 24, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
way to encourage his neurosis, RDC.
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 27, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
QB/Quinn scenario to watch for
I do not think Holmgren will draft a QB (this year). I believe there is some value in Anderson, personally I am trading him to Indy (no PM back up lol Sorgi) for a TE named Jacob Tamme.
Quinn to Denver for a late 2nd (I believe Denver has an extra 2nd this season). Denver finds value in Quinn and feels he can be good.
Look for the Browns to go after Travaris Jackson. He has shown flashes of being good, is not in line to start for Minnesota, coming out of Childress system that is a hybrid WCO, and has the tools to start in the NFL, enough tools for Holmgren to make the kid a complete player. He would come fairly cheap as well because he hasn’t done much in the league to garner big money attention.
Can any one Browns Employee be competent?
by Dawg26 on Dec 26, 2009 8:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Quinn probably wont get a late second anymore
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 26, 2009 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do not think Holmgren will draft a QB (this year). I believe there is some value in Anderson, personally I am trading him to Indy (no PM back up lol Sorgi) for a TE named Jacob Tamme.
Indy? Where Manning lives? I would think they valued smart QBs up there, not sure that DA fits that bill. Jacob Tamme? Why?
Quinn to Denver for a late 2nd (I believe Denver has an extra 2nd this season). Denver finds value in Quinn and feels he can be good
Denver just traded for Chicago’s trash I doubt their fans would go for giving up a 2nd for our trash.
Look for the Browns to go after Travaris Jackson. He has shown flashes of being good, is not in line to start for Minnesota, coming out of Childress system that is a hybrid WCO, and has the tools to start in the NFL, enough tools for Holmgren to make the kid a complete player. He would come fairly cheap as well because he hasn’t done much in the league to garner big money attention.
Not sure of availability but I would rather have Campbell than Jackson.
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 26, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Chicago traded for Denvers trash.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 26, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this comment seems very moon-like.
by Dawg Nuts on Dec 27, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No one will want to trade for Anderson.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 26, 2009 11:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I believe Cindrich is Smith’s agent, so this has credibility. And I know there are some voices around here who believe Smith can be a viable starting QB in the league if given a chance.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 28, 2009 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
1.) i wonder how willing the Ravens would be to trade a potentially starting QB to us.
2.) what’s the going rate for a 3-year QB with 89 career attempts? a 3rd and a 7th? 4th and a 5th?
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 28, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he is a restricted FA after this season. I doubt the Ravens would attach anything valuable to him tag-wise.
So we could get him for nothing more than money.
Just add in a poison pill to the contract and away we go.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 28, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think the Browns could go for it?
by emily522 on Dec 28, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope so as a Browns/Buckeyes fan.
I sure that Holmgren will be checking him out.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 28, 2009 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope so too (for the same reason as you… Browns/Buckeyes fan).
by emily522 on Dec 28, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How awesome would it be for Troy Smith to come to his hometown and turn around the Browns. I would love to at least give him the chance.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 28, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Me too. I think he does have some potential.
by emily522 on Dec 28, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we could probably get Tedd Ginn from Miami for some Friday's gift cards also.
I would be one huge Glenville Reunion.
by Rocland on Dec 29, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I could get behind a Stallworth for Ginn trade. Not that it’s likely to happen…
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 29, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve seen absolutely nothing out of Ginn in the pros as a WR. I see little reason to trade for a return specialist.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 29, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that would all depend on how many Friday’s gift cards the Dolphins would want in return.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 29, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
It’s foolish to write off a player before you examine what it would cost to acquire him.
Anyway, he’s not a number one receiver. The Dolphins should be using him in the slot but they lack another guy for the outside.
by gahnki on Dec 29, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is off topic, but does anyone notice he wears a kicker facemask?
Doesn’t wearing that in his position defeat the purpose of a facemask…
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 30, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
never said I wouldn’t acquire him for one Friday’s gift card.
I’m saying I wouldn’t waste the roster spot on a return specialist when our special teams return unit does just fine.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 30, 2009 8:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t either but it would be awesome seeing Ginn and Cribbs next to each other returning kicks offs. Teams would either just spot us the 7 or give us the ball at the 40. (?)
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 30, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends what it would cost. But I have a hard time believing he wouldn’t be more productive than what we have now.
by gahnki on Dec 28, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We should explore a trade for Troy
In the limited time he has seen in the NFL, Troy Smith has looked pretty good. I think it would be far less risky to trade for Troy (assuming they could get him w/out giving up too much) than to use a high draft pick in 2010 for a QB. I wouldn’t give up on Quinn but would bring in Troy and have a healthy competition between the two for the starting job.
by Jeff I on Jan 2, 2010 12:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
We don’t have to trade for Troy Smith.
He is a restricted Free Agent. The Ravens could give him a high tender, but he wants out, they have a franchise QB and a second round QB in Beck on the roster already.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 2, 2010 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no thanks on both smith and another QB competition. give quinn a full year as the starter, practicing, playing without looking over his shoulder. if he still sucks, then explore our QB options next year. if troy smith was going to take a team to the super bowl, he’d be starting already somewhere. i know there are exceptions to that idea, but i don’t see him being one.
by Dawg Nuts on Jan 3, 2010 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just read on the rotowire that there’s a possibility Holmgren might want to reunite with Matt Hasselback… What do you guys think of Hasselback in a Browns jersey?
by shep615 on Jan 4, 2010 6:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
after his perfomance this year? not that high on the move.
If he wanted to come in to mentor Quinn, noe that I could live with (although the media would definitely create another QB controversy).
by talonk on Jan 5, 2010 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
Related FanShots on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
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.
