Quinn or Sanchez

Quinn > Sanchez

by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 13, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

gimme 4 years of great stats at shitty ND over 14 games (and a tricky knee) of great stats at SC (who may or may not have beaten the lions this year). stafford will be gone, but i’d prefer quinn to him, too.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 13, 2009 1:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, start over with another rookie QB. That’s a great idea. Especially a guy who only played one year in college.

I can pretty much guarentee this scenerio will not happen. Mangini didn’t come here to trade both QB’s and start over with a rookie.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 13, 2009 3:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Or just keep Quinn and the 5 and get the best outside pass rusher in the draft (whoever that is)

lowbrowsophisticate.com

by kwoog on Feb 13, 2009 3:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

While my question is partially facetious, and meant to be inflammatory, I really am curious about the differences of talent between these two (let’s set aside Quinn’s greater experience).
And I wonder about Quinn. Leadership is clearly a big part of winning, as Warner and Roethlisberger demonstrate. Does Quinn have that? Did he get socked by Smith because he isn’t really a player’s QB? He hasn’t had much opportunity to show it, certainly, but that could be telling us something. Why go forward with him if it just leads to average results?

by NM Dawg on Feb 13, 2009 3:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

at this point, it’s pretty impossible to tell much about quinn, unfortunately. what we do know is that he’s tough, which players love, he works his ass off, which players respect, and he wants to be great as much as anybody. i think he got socked by smith b/c smith is an all-time asshole, which will be evidenced when he is cut.

sanchez is going to be very good, but so will quinn…and quinn will get there faster.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 13, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can tell you a few things about Quinn

1. He knows how to use his All Pro TE. Watch tape of the Denver game again, he got the ball in Kellen’s hands early and often, let the guy make plays. One of the most frustrating things for me to watch was Anderson completely neglect Winslow often. Quinn displayed a quick release and good timing on those TE routes

2. He is more agile than Anderson. Quinn successfully avoided some blitzes by a few simple steps and also was able to scramble some, he is a solid all around athlete

I think the biggest question with Quinn and one that I feel confident in his ability to do is make plays downfield. Anderson thrived off of the deep plays to Braylon which alternately set up some underneath game (moreso in 2007 with Joey J). If Quinn can find that downfield connection with Braylon, he will be a stud QB

by Roger Dorn on Feb 13, 2009 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would say Quinn’s arm strength is probably slightly better than Sanchez’. We also know that Quinn works hard. Really hard. Sanchez…maybe? All else being equal, I would rather root for the NFL player who works his ass off.

In terms of accuracy, I think Quinn is more accurate, but has a higher % of throws where he is just way off. Sanchez probably is more consistent, but when Quinn has the strike zone, he is pinpoint. Does that make any sense?

They both seem like good athletes, and I give Quinn the slight edge because he runs tough. Sanchez…maybe?

I think Quinn has better in-game intelligence, too, but I have zero evidence to back that up.

When you are comparing their college careers, you are looking at Quinn who willed a horrible team to become decent with the aid of three or five first-day NFL picks. Sanchez let a team who basically starts a first-rounder at every position lose to teams like Oregon St. Sure, he blew out OSU without Beanie. Sure, he threw it all over the worst Cover-3 I have ever seen when he played Penn St. How would he have fared against a team as talented as his?

Sanchez may end up being a great player, but Quinn wants to win Super Bowls with the Browns. And he’s already here. And I don’t know what we could get for him. Trading Quinn just doesn’t make much sense.

by rufio on Feb 13, 2009 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. This is pretty much it. You don’t take another QB in the first round ever in any scenario when you already have a talented first round QB on your roster even though you don’t know exactly what you have in him yet.

If the Browns took SAnchez or Stafford for that matter, they would be talked about like they were the new Lions.

by Roger Dorn on Feb 13, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Sanchez a whole lot. I’m not that big on Quinn. However, the Browns aren’t drafting a quarterback and I hope Quinn does well enough that there is no need for another.

by gahnki on Feb 13, 2009 7:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Since consensus seems to be that Quinn likely can be the leader the team needs, it takes us back to 2007, and what a shame it was that he was under contract so late. My understanding is that if he had been under contract earlier, we would have not been forced to build an offensive plan around Anderson’s qualities (as Quinn very possibly would have been the starter). I don’t believe this same plan was ever a good one for Quinn because he is such a different kind of player, and he was doomed to fail with it until Anderson was off the team. Hopefully, Mangini will finally commit to this (sending Anderson away), and construct an offense that takes advantage of Quinn’s talents. Going along with that, perhaps we’ll try to find some backups who can work reasonably well with the same system, so meltdowns like the past year will be less likely.

by NM Dawg on Feb 14, 2009 3:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If anything, last year’s offense was tailored for Quinn, not DA. Quinn has never played in a “DA offense” in a meaningful game.

The problems when Quinn was playing last year was that he had that tendon injury and couldn’t spin the ball, Braylon couldn’t catch, we had no reliable receivers outside of K2, and our running game was average at best.

We should absolutely find some backups who are pretty mobile, accurate passers (like Quinn). So we never have to change the offense based on a QB change, but there are plenty of things Mangini/Kokinis should worry about first.

by rufio on Feb 14, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t aware of the tendon injury, or had forgotten about it.
I thought, following the success of the year before which ran ideally for Anderson, Crennel decided to stick with a similar plan for 2008. That plan seemed to be to stretch the field with his big arm, which didn’t work out as well in 2008 for a number of reasons. In the games that I got to watch Quinn in, it looked like he had a hard time with the long ball, which would be explained some by the tendon injury.

by NM Dawg on Feb 14, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s why Quinn was shut down for the year; he injured the tendon in his right index finger.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Feb 15, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I knew about the season ending injury. It sounded like there was an injury prior to that.
Major shakeups, not necessariy canning your QB who hasn’t had a chance to prove himself, sometimes change team cultures. I am curious to see if any jarring trades take place in free agency that might do this for the Browns, or if they try a subtler approach of building off of what we already have and overcoming whatever disfunctions linger from the past season. The extreme option, deconstruction, brought me to the idea of starting from scratch at QB and what might be the advantage (if any), knowing it is very unlikely to happen. I can’t think of many other players on the team whose trade would shock the team in the same way.

by NM Dawg on Feb 15, 2009 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Deconstruction? You basically mean “rebuilding”, right? Trading away a lot of the players we have and trying to get better ones? Not some crazy Derridian football analogy that I am way too dumb to understand?

Quinn’s injury occurred during the first half of the Buffalo game. He played the whole Denver game and part of the Buffalo game uninjured, then part of the Buffalo game and part of the Houston game injured. He only had the one injury but was playing through it.

I didn’t get to see all of the Browns games this year, but from what I understand in 2008, we did not stretch the field as often as in 2007 and it wasn’t even close. We certainly didn’t complete as many long passes (which doesn’t necessarily prove we didn’t try). When I did get a chance to watch, it looked like DA was trying to be a smart, pinpoint, short-distance thrower, which sounds a lot more like Quinn to me. The camera angle leaves out a lot of the secondary, so you usually can’t tell if someone is running deep or even where the pass play was “designed” to go, so you can’t really know what our goals were, but the ball didn’t go down the field as much this past year.

by rufio on Feb 15, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cranky, cranky. Deconstruction is not so obscure. If you like rebuild better, fine. I’m not saying I’m necessarily in favor of it, either. It is possible that the team can succeed with largely the same roster as before, which they will have to do if they don’t pick up more draft picks. But it is also an option to trade away significant players, acquiring more new players, and allowing different leaders to emerge. Theres no harm in speculating, and I think it is interesting to hear what ideas come up when we do. Another, but less extreme, example would be trading Winslow. The Quinn thought kind of tanked on me, but I was somewhat prepared for that.

by NM Dawg on Feb 15, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A linebacker, a DL, and RB, and I would not argue if the Browns draft Jenkins with the 5. Sanchez IMO is not even on the radar.

"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"

by Grockcubs on Feb 14, 2009 9:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

There is a great article at cleveland.com about DA’s contract.

If we pay him the bonus, he is more attractive in a trade, clearly (as the other team does not have to pay the bonus). The other team would be responsible only for 1.5 million dollars this year.

However, if we pay the bonus, DA automatically counts as 8.2 million against the cap, even if we trade or cut him immediately thereafter.

The PD is talking about getting a first rounder for him. If someone gets panicky and sees Sanchez and Stafford come off the board, I guess it’s possible, but I am not betting on it.

by rufio on Feb 15, 2009 2:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This seems to differ widely from the opinions we see on this board (people claiming to be “ecstatic” if we got a 3rd rounder). What do you think his value is/could be, both pre and post paying the bonus?

I for one wouldn’t accept anything less than a high-ish second rounder.

lowbrowsophisticate.com

by kwoog on Feb 15, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could be? Before next season? If we got a late 1st, I would die out of happiness. I honestly have no idea. Someone could get desperate and hope they can coach up a 26yo former Pro Bowler with a rocket arm, or people might not be interested at all. If Minnesota ran any offense except the west coast, I’d say we could probably get a good deal from them. I think DA’s value is a lot higher than most Browns fans think, but the PD is probably a little too hopeful. By paying the bonus, we probably get a round’s worth of value in a trade (i.e. 3rd to 2nd), especially if the potential suitor is cheap and/or near the cap.

If we let him play more, we have to sit Quinn and anything could happen.

Pure speculation.

by rufio on Feb 15, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Browns need to cut their losses with Anderson

The guys has had exactly one half of one good season, and that was against a terribly weak schedule all of us in the AFC North had in 2007. Anderson averaged 266 passing yards the first half of 2007, and when the films made their way around the league, Anderson compiled 211 yards per game the second half of the season, mind you, against generally bad teams.

He is more of a liability than an asset. The Browns would do best to trade him before March 1 for a ham sandwich or anything else they can get. Having him count $8-plus million against the salary cap would be a major liability.

This is the new Mangini-Quinn era and you people don’t need Anderson lurking to muddie the waters. Let Mangini and Quinn start fresh. The best thing you can do for the rest of the AFC North is draft Sanchez and have a three-headed monster. Throw all your money at multiple quarterbacks and keep chasing your tail.

Phil Savage knew what he was doing when he traded to get Quinn. He probably agonized over the Thomas-Quinn decision at pick #3. Tne best thing you can do is give Quinn the team and clear out everything else.

Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history

by maryrose on Feb 15, 2009 11:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs