2009 Season in Review: The Quarterbacks- The almost-emergence of Brady Quinn
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 20, 2010 12:54 AM EST
344 comments
In part 1 of this series, I looked at the strength of the team: the offensive line. Now I will turn to one of the worst parts of the 2009 team: the quarterbacks.
That's not to say I think QB is the biggest need going forward. Or that there is no potential for these QBs to get better. Just that for the 2009 season they were awful.
I considered making this a one word article: (can you guess it?)
suck.
So how bad were they? Really, really freaking bad.
What? You want more? Fine, I'll roll up my sleeves, try to keep my eyes open, and do some dirty work.
The Players
Brady Quinn (10 games, 9 starts)
Derek Anderson (8 games, 7 starts)
Brett Ratliff (0 games in real life, 19 starts, including the Super Bowl in mooncamping's head).
The "peaks" and valleys... and the canyons
Here is a quick review of what happened this year at the quarterback position this year for the Browns:
Week 1 through Halftime of Week 3: In those first 10 quarters Brady Quinn was accurate (60.8 Completion %), but wasn't throwing the ball down field (under 5.5 YPA), didn't trust his protection (took 10 sacks), and turned the ball way too much (3 INTs and 2 lost fumbles). The offense was stagnant and it didn't show any signs of improvement. Mangini made the move to DA at halftime of week 3.
Halftime of Week 3 through Week 8: DA's turn. Besides a halfway decent game against the Bengals (a QB rating in the 60's!!), DA was historically bad in those 5.5 games. During these 5.5 games: 42.8 Completion %, 2 TDs, 9 INTs, and only 4.4 YPA. That is amazingly bad. He was 2-17 for 23 yards and an INT one game, and it wasn't his lowest QB rating (15.1) in this stretch! (He had a 10.5 in the Bears game). He was benched after the bye-week.
Week 10 through Week 15: Quinn's reprieve. This was the best stretch for a Browns QB in 2009. After a rough game against the Ravens (13-31, 99 yards, 2 INTs, 4 sacks), Quinn was something that resembled a good NFL QB for almost a month. Over the next 4 games Quinn had 7 TDs and 0 INTs. He was sacked just 5 times and only fumbled once. He lead the Browns to two of their most impressive offensive performances: @ Detroit and vs. San Diego. He was downright prolific in those two games. He managed the game decently against the Chiefs, allowing Harrison and Cribbs to shine (0 sacks, 0 turnovers, 40 yards rushing) Edit- he did have 2 INT's that game. Then he hurt his foot and was put on IR
Week 16 through 17: Derek Anderson's last starts for the Browns? (I can dream, right?). DA was alright at 15 for 28 and 207 yards. 1 TD, 1 INT. The Browns won each of these games, but mainly because of defense, rushing, and special teams.
The overall picture
While it can be useful to go back and see the progression of QB play, we should also zoom out and evaluate their play from a wider shot. The numbers tell most of the story-
Quinn:136/256 (53.1%), 9 TDs, 8 INTs, 1339 (6.0 YPA), 67.2 QB Rating, 19 sacks, -148 DYAR (31st of NFL QBs 46), -19.2% DVOA (32nd)
Anderson: 81/182 (44.5%), 3 TDs, 10 INTs, 888 Yards (4.9 YPA), 42.1 QB Rating, 11 sacks, -361 DYAR (42nd), -40.4% DVOA (44th)
In sum, neither quarterback was anywhere near league average. But Quinn was closer to average than he was to the total bottom of the barrel, i.e. Derek Anderson.
Josh Cribbs
Football Outsiders actually lists Cribbs as a Quarterback and ranks his rushing efforts as such (he ranked 3rd in total value as a rushing QB behind Aaron Rodgers and David Garrard). He probably deserves mention in about 4 of these reviews. We may write a review just for him.
Thoughts and Conclusions
Many commentators at DBN and elsewhere were quick to lambaste Eric Mangini for benching Quinn just 10 quarters in to the season. I said at the time, the move made perfect sense to me. Not only did we save on a potential roster bonus. Not only did we get one last chance to evaluate DA. Not only was the offense and team in need of a wakeup call after 10 crappy quarters to start the season. But, I argued, benching Brady Quinn was probably the best thing for the development of Brady Quinn.
When he came back Quinn was more confident. He trusted his protection. His eyes were downfield: not paying attention to the rush or searching for checkdowns. He trusted his arm. He threw downfield more frequently and with more commitment to the throw. And he gained rapport with his receivers. From Massaquoi to Furrey to Moore.
All that said, I'm still not sure that there is anything worth crap at the QB position presently on the roster. Quinn has had 3 seasons under his belt. But whether it due to ineffectiveness or injury, he hasn't been able to stay on the field. Quinn supporters can try to make all the excuses they want, but the bottom line is he has failed to lock up the starting job for more than brief stretches.
Quinn made some progress this year, but I'm not sure it was enough to guarantee him a starting job going forward.
Derek Anderson sucked. For 2010, he is closer to being out of the league than winning a starting job.
What to look for in the offseason:
This is a tough call. Mike Holmgren will likely influence the QB decisions more than any others. Like he said, he knows a little something about quarterbacks. And the first evaluation he'll have to make is on Brady Quinn. That is probably the key to this puzzle.
- Potential Losses: Brett Ratliff is an "exclusive rights free agent", whatever that means. If Holmgren is not sold on Quinn for the long or short term, he instantly becomes a trading commodity. Anderson is either gone or relegated to 3rd string. If we get a pick for him, great. If not, cut him before the next bonus is due.
- Available FA's: Some interesting names, but no franchise types.
Kyle Orton and Jason Campbell both have had some solid seasons in the last couple years, are pretty young, and have a good chance of landing with a new team.
Kellen Clemens and Tavaris Jackson were both backups this year, but have started NFL games and could be an upgrade/placeholder type.
Troy Smith is a restricted FA and he may want to go somewhere more likely to give him playing time. I will fight anyone who doesn't recognize how good Troy Smith could be in the NFL as an accurate, pocket passer.
- The Eagles situation. There is vast speculation among fans and those that cover the Browns on the current Eagles QBs. While McNabb, Cobb Kolb, and Vick are all under contract, some think that with GM Heckert's familiarity with these guys and Holmgren and Heckert's relationship with Andy Reid, a deal could be made. I don't see this happening.
- Draft. I've read some opinions that this is a deep QB draft. Not sure about that, but I am sure I want nothing to do with the top tier guys. Sam Bradford, Jimmy Clausen, and Tim Tebow all are way too risky and have epic bust potential. (I only list Tebow because I'm convinced some idiot owner or GM will be desperate enough or stupid enough to buy into the hype. On talent, and as a QB, he is a stretch as a 7th rounder, in my opinion).
I don't really want a QB in the early second round either. But if we find ourselves in the mid to late second or if we like a guy in the third round or later, I'd be ok with that. Someone like (in order of my preference) Dan LeFevour, Colt McCoy, Daryl Clark, or Tony Pike.
2 recs |
344 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice review
I still think with good coaching Quinn has a good a chance as any- and at last now we have the brainpower to develop someone like Quinn. I’m also not sold on a high draft pick, maybe a flutter on one of those you mentioned in the third round?
I hope to see training camp starting Quinn/ Ratliff/ Lower Round Rookie.
DA to raiders.
"The Braylon vaccine- one jab and you'll never catch anything ever again"
If the Raiders break camp with DA, Frye, and Gradkowski on their roster I will a smile a smile that would make the the Raisin Bran sun look goth.
Wow. Fail.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 9:17 AM EST up reply actions
Thats pretty freaking happy.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
Damn it feels good to be a Buckeye!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon! Check it out!
by Andrew Tolliver on Jan 20, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
Remember the UFL article I wrote about? How DA is the most gifted UFL player in the NFL? Scratch that. I’ve come to the realization that the UFL won’t even want him.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
Quinn’s downfield accuracy will prevent him from being a quality starter. Orton will be re-signed.
Campbell could be interesting if we had a young guy with high upside in development. Same for Pennington.
TJack’s numbers are better than I thought, but I’ve never been impressed. Not really interested.
I’d be happy with a move for an Eagles QB, for the right price.
Bradford I like, Clausen not so much.
I think Quinn will succeed, he just needs a good coach
If Mangini gets fired mid-season, who will take-over, will it be the Man upstairs? I would like to see that. Its a lot easier for Holmgren to circumvent the rooney rule if he hires himself as interim coach!
I have a hard time thinking that Mangini gets fired midseason.
If he didn’t get fired after the first 8 games of this season, in which we looked like a bad college team, he won’t ever be fired in season.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 21, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
But Holmgren is in charge now and the owner will let
him do anything he wants, including becoming interim head coach. He couldn’t exactly fire magini and then hire himself this off-season according to the rooney rule.
At first I thought that Holmgren wanted to be the HC, but everything that he has said and done since, says differently.
I think that Holmgren will give Mangini a fair shake.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 22, 2010 12:19 AM EST up reply actions
If anyone can identify a diamond-in-the-rough QB it is Holmgren. Quinn has had 3 seasons and has failed to show any flashes of greatness. He’s shown flashes of "good"ness, but shouldn’t a topflight QB show something more by this time?
(note: it’s Kolb, not Cobb)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 20, 2010 9:32 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Korn on the Kolb?
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 9:38 AM EST up reply actions
Haha
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
Damn it feels good to be a Buckeye!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon! Check it out!
by Andrew Tolliver on Jan 20, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
Look who his coaches have been
To say Quinn has not developed leaves two possibilities- he can’t or he has not been taught. To say he cannot be accurate enough for downfield strikes is to be blind and stupid. He has proven that he can. Clearly the physical talent is there. But 70% of a QB is mental and that is where coaching is so important. Holmgren will be able to tell what it is.
Laugh at the epic bust – how would YOU know. College QBs are hard to judge for the experts and I see nothing in your writing that shows you know anything about QBs.
re: Quinn- Maybe he is tough to coach/teach, I don’t know. What I do know is that he hasn’t shown much in 3 years. He has lost his job multiple times to Derek Anderson. Two separate coaching staffs have decided, at several different times, that DA was a better option for the team than Quinn.
Plus, he can’t stay healthy. That’s not a good thing. The injuries seem to have minimal long-term impact, but since part of his value is his athleticsim, I can see injuries being an issue his entire career.
I didn’t say he “cannot be accurate enough for downfield strikes”. Though if I did, it would not be unreasonable, blind or stupid. His deep balls are not accurate and one of the more disappointing aspects of his professional career. When it comes to arm strength I think it is anything but “clear” if the physical talent is “there” or not. I happen to think he has enough arm strength to succeed in a league that Chad Pennington can be a Pro Bowler.
I’ll ignore that last part for now. Try not to insult people. It was my opinion, and that is how I said it. Any early 1st round QB comes with extremely high bust potential because a backup QB isn’t worth much. If you disagree, show why.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 20, 2010 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
Drop the subject line, and the attitude.
Also, did you watch the Browns play at all this year? When was Quinn accurate downfield?
I think at the end of the Ravens MNF game where he completely sailed the ball 10 yards out of bounds right?
Yep. That sounds about right.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
quinn is going to get a chance next year, i think. he wasn’t great, but he showed enough that holmgren/heckert would be foolish to not at least entertain it. even if they draft a QB, they aren’t going to dump quinn and put all of our hopes in the hands of a rookie.
i also believe we have bigger needs that they will address through free agency/trades. i’m fairly hog certain quinn goes into camp as our starter. whether he holds that position the whole season remains to be seen.
That depends on whether Homgren/Heckert think they can get value for Quinn. I trust Holmgren’s judgments of QB’s and if he thinks BQ is worth trading for a 3rd or 4th rounder (or even a 5th or 6th), that’d be fine with me. Sure Phil Savage paid way, way, way too much for Quinn (and MANY fans even wanted him to take BQ over Joe Thomas — lol), but those are sunk costs and we need to get over it.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Jan 20, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
I guess you’ll have to fight me, but Troy Smith? Really? I know he’s from Cleveland and went to Ohio State, but Troy Smith?
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 10:39 AM EST reply actions
This speculation only comes from the fact that you have bias against him for no apparent reason other than your own wrong speculation. This goes with the “Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler?” speculation. Those speculators were then owned with fairly hog certainty through the season.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
What in God’s name are you blabbing about?
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
It mostly concludes to that you’re wrong and I really wanted to use fairly hog certainty to some extent.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough — you just chose to take the ranting imbecile approach.
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
It actually makes sense. In reality too, not just Mooncamping’s.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
Originally, my first response was going to be simply: “Mooncamping?”
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I put a disclaimer in my last comment so no, I am not. And I would have been very insulted if I got the damn “Mooncamping?” bit.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
I’m glad then that I did the keyboard equivalent of biting my tongue.
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
this doesn’t fit all that well and only a few people will get it:
I really wanted to use fairly hog certainty to some extent.
and to a lesser extent, Chris Gimenez.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
It wasn’t a good one, but when I saw “to some extent” I couldn’t help thinking it.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 11:48 PM EST up reply actions
On Troy Smtih:
I believe he is exceptionally accurate. I know he is short for a QB, but short QBs have had success in the past when they are some combination of very athletic and very accurate. Drew Brees is the best and most recent example, but a list of 6’1 and under successful QBs that I once posted a while back showed a whole bunch of successful mobile and accurate QBs.
His senior year at Ohio State, he made some of the most accurate mid and deep throws I’ve ever seen at the college level. He hardly ever relied on his legs that season. Just relied on good reads, good preparation, and a good arm. The times I’ve seen him play for the Ravens, mainly in preseason games, he looks like he’s still got that uncanny accuracy.
I’m not saying he is Drew Brees, or even a Pro Bowler. Just that he has the ability to be a starting QB in this league, and a solid one. If not for a freak illness just before the 2008 season, he’d probably still be starting for Baltimore.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I appreciate the impassioned and reasoned response, but I just don’t fully understand the fascination. I have nothing particular against him, but I thought his selection in the fifth round was fair. I just don’t see Smith as the type of guy to build a franchise around. Maybe if he gets a chance in Baltimore, a team that likes to run the ball and play defense, but he’s not a guy I would actively pursue.
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t build the franchise around him either. Like I said, he’s about equal in current value and potential ceiling as Brady Quinn in my mind. Maybe a tad higher.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
he’s about equal in current value and potential ceiling as Brady Quinn
If that’s the case, I wouldn’t give up anything to go get him.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
The point is, we might get something for Quinn and Smith is a free agent (restricted).
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 21, 2010 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
He’s probably better than anything we have now. I think the Drew Brees comparison is very accurate; not that he’ll ever be that good, of course, but he’s that type of QB. I would love to give him the chance to start here and see what he could do.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 20, 2010 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
if baltimore thought he was that good, why wouldn’t they give him a chance to compete against flacco, or do something to raise his trade value and then get something for him?
he would have been the starter last year if he hadn’t gotten some weird illness right before the season.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Right, he beat out Flacco when they were both healthy.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3590647
This doesn’t say explicitly that he won the job, but it does describe the injury pretty well.
Other sources say that he was scheduled to start the 3rd preseason game, usually the game that the starters play the most in the preseason.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
If not for a freak illness just before the 2008 season, he’d probably still be starting for Baltimore.
In my understanding, Baltimore drafted Flacco to eventually be their starting quarterback. Troy Smith was going to keep the seat warm. If they thought they had a legitimate starting QB on their roster, they wouldn’t have spent a first-round pick on another one, especially with a team that close to contention.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think anybody outside of Buckeyes fans — and that includes the Ravens themselves — really thinks Smith has the stuff to be a good NFL quarterback. I’ll grant that he hasn’t really had an opportunity, but there’s probably reason for that.
the reason he hasn’t had a chance is that illness you quoted.
Also, the reason they drafted flacco was because they didn’t think troy smith was a top tier starter, and neither do we. we just think he would be a consistently average starting qb, with a possibility of being more than that.
Think of the chargers situation a few years ago. They had drew brees as their starter, but they drafted phillip rivers to be their starter because they weren’t sold on brees.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
To clarify the Brees situation, when the Chargers drafted Rivers Brees wasn’t exactly the starting quarterback. He had been replaced by Doug Flutie the previous season and wasn’t starting at the end of the year. I don’t think the Chargers thought he was even an average starting quarterback at that point. After Rivers held out, Brees got to start the next season and became a pro bowler.
A lot of people are saying that Smith would have been a starter if not for this illness — as if he’d played great and earned the role, and this tonsilitis kept him out ever since. I can’t find the exact date that he was activated back to the team, but he was practicing by mid-September and certainly ready to play by early October. Six weeks into the season (mid-October), the Ravens had a losing record, and Joe Flacco had one touchdown and seven interceptions. If there was any chance that Smith could be a league-average quarterback, the Ravens would have stuck him right back into the starting role, because it’s not like Flacco had earned it.
Look, I know you guys aren’t saying that Smith will be an elite player (though you should stop using Drew Brees as your example if that’s the case). I’m saying that league average is an extremely optimistic projection for Smith. He lasted until the 5th round because nobody in the league thought he could be league average. He sat behind Kyle Boller because his coaches didn’t think he could be league average. After he recovered from his illness, he sat behind a terrible rookie on a contending team at a time when the Ravens were desperate for league average quarterback play.
At some point, all of the NFL people that haven’t been interested in giving Smith a shot has to tell you something. Heck, John Harbaugh has said that Smith could compete with John Beck for the backup job next year.
If we got Smith, I would root for him to do well, but he hasn’t done anything (other than play at Ohio State) to show that he would be better than the Charlie Fryes or Bruce Gradkowskis of the world.
please stop saying the only reason people like him is because he went to ohio state. Not everyone cares about college football.
Since you so wonderfully clarified the drew brees situation, how does that sound any different than smith’s situation?
smith did play great and earn the role. his tonsilitis hasn’t been the thing to keep him out since then, his coach has. His coach decided he liked what he saw out of joe flacco and thought with playing time he could develop into a great qb, so why take away that playing time?
you’re right, nobody is saying he will be elite, but you’re wrong that we should stop using the brees example. its the closest thing to the ravens situation, so the comparison makes sense. Everything else you said in the third paragraph could be said of brady quinn, with the lone difference being we have seen way more games from brady quinn so we have a much clearer picture of where he stands as a qb.
its also not like a ton of people aren’t interested in giving him a shot. its one coach and gm.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 21, 2010 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
I’m going to reply to all three of you, so sorry in advance about that.
The difference between Brees’ situation and Smith’s situation is that Brees was the first pick of the second round. Lots of NFL people thought he had the potential to be at least an average starting QB. Smith fell to the fifth because the consensus was that he was not good enough to be an NFL starter.
You say that Brees is the closest thing to the Ravens example, but he’s not. Brees is the exception to the rule. Lots of quarterbacks sit behind better quarterbacks, and then fail when they get the chance to play. If you’re thinking of Purdue quarterbacks, I think Curtis Painter is a much better comparison. He put up some pretty good numbers in college (not as good as Smith’s, sure, but college numbers are mostly bogus and he was playing for a lousy team). He was drafted near the end of his draft, like Smith. He’s sitting behind a better quarterback, so he’ll never get a real chance, like Smith. Neither have any kind of NFL resume. Why aren’t we clamoring to get Painter, or one of the 20 other dudes with basically the same resume?
the reason smith fell is because people didn’t think he could be a pocket passer. he was a pocket passer oftentimes in college and was good in the pocket. in a way, his scrambling ability hurt him. he is a heisman winner and put up just as good of career stats as brees. he has a slightly weaker arm, but was just as accurate in college.
painter does not have as many skills as smith. if painter was 6 feet tall flat, he would not have gotten drafted. if smith was 6’3’’ he would have been probably at least a third rounder and maybe even higher. people think you cannot be short and survive in the NFL which just isn’t true. smith can scramble so he doesn’t always have to stay in the pocket.
also, where a guy gets drafted is maybe as bogus, if not more than college stats. you are saying smith cannot be good b/c he was drafted high, but brees, who is a similar players was drafted high and therefore should be good in the NFL. for a QB, your stats sometimes are just as important as where you are drafted. smith was a much better QB than painter.
also, where a guy gets drafted is maybe as bogus, if not more than college stats. you are saying smith cannot be good b/c he was drafted high, but brees, who is a similar players was drafted high and therefore should be good in the NFL.
I’m not saying Smith can’t be good — maybe he will be. I’m saying there’s no particular reason to think he will be good. Brees’s draft pick is relevant because it shows that he had demonstrated enough skills at some point to be considered a legit NFL QB.
His play at Ohio State was better than what Frye or Gradkowski did, considering they played at MAC schools.
Also, Smith played a handful of games at league average level, or slightly higher, as a rookie in the NFL. (5.2% DVOA in 2007 over 4 games). Back in 05, Frye played a handful of games his rookie year. His DVOA? -19.3%. Gradkowski hasn’t had any year better than -30% DVOA.
Smith has a much stronger arm and is more athletic than the Frye or Gradkowski.
And if Harbaugh really has that low of an opinion of Smith, GREAT. He surely won’t be giving him a big tender, and Smith will be free, at the very least, to leave one of our hated rivals.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
As someone who likes numbers, RK, you know that Smith’s stats don’t have nearly enough sample size to mean anything.
All we have to judge Smith are college performances and what NFL scouts and coaches think of him. And the fact is, Frye was a much more highly-rated quarterback than Smith coming out of college. He was considered a second- or third-round talent and Smith was a second-day guy. Since Smith hasn’t managed to earn himself any playing time in the NFL (save for a token starting job when they were waiting for Flacco to be ready, which he couldn’t get back even when Flacco was godawful in 2008), there’s no reason to think he’s any better than any other late-round backup in the league.
But hey, if Baltimore does offer him very little, and we can steal him away for free, sure I’ll give him a shot in training camp. I always kind of liked him at OSU. I just wouldn’t expect anything out of him, and I wouldn’t give up anything to get him.
Actually, I think people were shocked Frey was taken so early and mildly surprised that Smith lasted so long in the draft.
Also, I know Smith’s numbers have a big sample size caveat, but he was an NFL starter for 3-4 games his rookie year and he looked pretty darn good in those games.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
My recollection is that Frye actually fell to us in the third. At this point I can’t find a whole lot of material about the 2005 draft, but WalterFootball had him going in the second round.
At this point we’re nit-picking, but Smith only started two games his rookie year (he appeared in 4), and he only played decently in one game. I don’t think we can draw any conclusions from that.
If we got Smith, I would root for him to do well, but he hasn’t done anything (other than play at Ohio State) to show that he would be better than the Charlie Fryes or Bruce Gradkowskis of the world.
He hasn’t really had a chance to do anything since he left OSU.
In regular season action he has the following stats:
2007: 40-76, 452 yards, 2 TD’s, 0 INT’s
2008: 3-4, 82 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT’s
2009: 5-9, 24 yards, 0 TD’s, 1 INT’s
That is 89 passes in 3 seasons, and the majority was as a rookie (and those numbers as a rookie don’t look bad). All we have to go off of is that and his time at OSU. No one knows if he is going to be great, but if we have a shot to give a guy who completed 65% of his passes and had a career tally of 44-13 TD/INT ratio a major school a look, then hell yes we need to.
The only thing that matters about Troy Smith and Ohio State is that he became a good passing QB prospect there. Nothing else.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 22, 2010 12:31 AM EST up reply actions
I know that Smith hasn’t had any playing time since he left OSU. Several people in this thread have said that Brady Quinn has demonstrated that he isn’t very good because he has failed to win starting jobs over poor competition. I sort of agree with that. And that applies even more to Troy Smith. He has been behind terrible-to-average quarterbacks in Baltimore and failed to earn playing time.
I’m sorry to doubt you guys, but I think if Troy Smith had put up the same numbers at Illinois or (God forbid) Michigan, nobody here would have any interest in him. Everybody here does a good job of placing college statistics in a proper context… but then when it comes to Smith, that goes out the window. Lots of QBs put up good numbers at major schools, and we’re not interested in them. Heck, if we’re just judging guys by college statistics, let’s bring back Graham Harrell.
Thing is, the major reasons I’m so high on Smith don’t have to do with his numbers. It has to do with the throws he was able to make in college, in the NFL preseason, and those few starts as a NFL rookie.
Like I said above, he was making throws at OSU more accurately and impressively down field than anyone I’ve seen at the college level. I think his arm is good enough to overcome his lack of size and the total package should be a NFL starter.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I, too, was amazed by Smith at Ohio State. But I’m sorry, you were watching and rooting for Troy Smith every week. Of course you think he was great.
I bet there are lots of Texas fans who would say something like “Colt McCoy was making throws at Texas more accurately and with better decision-making than anyone I’ve seen at the college level. I think his size, poise and accuracy is good enough to overcome his lack of arm strength and the total package should be an NFL starter.”
Those of us who are watching Colt from a distance aren’t too excited about his NFL chances. But I bet if we were Texas fans, we’d be clamoring to draft him.
I am an Ohio State fan, and I like Colt.
Crazy huh?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 24, 2010 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
But Texas and OSU ran different offenses.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 24, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
once again, i don’t care one bit about college football, but i think smith could be good.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 24, 2010 11:25 PM EST up reply actions
I’d admit that I have watched Smith more closely both during college and since because he is a local guy that went to OSU. But that doesn’t instantly make me lose all objectivity.
After watching him as close as I could the last 5 years, I think he is good enough to be an NFL starter. Apparently, you haven’t seen enough from him or thing he is not. Fine.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 25, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
wait…joe flacco is terribe-to-average as a QB??? I would say he is pretty damn good.
the first year, very few QBs end up starting. he did start a couple games and played in 4. for a backup rookie QB in general, that is good.
His second year, the starting job was basically his until he got sick with tonsilitis in the preseason. he was basically going to be the starter. he was scheduled to start and play most of the 3rd preseason game. this is the game where they give the starter significant playing time. he however was out for a few weeks with the illness and they gave the job to flacco.
flacco has been great since he got the starting gig so it has left no room for smith to win the job. you really think baltimore would bench flacco??? flacco was even better in 2009.
you really brought up graham harrell??? harrell was a system QB in a system that makes anyone good. their backup QB, a no star recruit who just barely got a scholarship, had a good season when taylor potts got injured. in fact, his yard per throw was over 8 and his QB rating, translated over to the pros, was over 120. the Texas Tech offense can make anybody look good so don’t even try to say harrell is worth much. he doesn’t have an NFL skill set.
wait…joe flacco is terribe-to-average as a QB??? I would say he is pretty damn good
What makes Flacco any different than Jason Campbell?
An awesome defense and an awesome running game. That’s it as far as I can tell.
I’m not saying that Flacco is junk, but I need to see more. He has played in 5 playoff games and has a 46.5 QB rating in those. Why is he mentioned as great young player?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2010 3:20 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed about the playoffs…
I did exaggerate about flacco and I do agree, he hasn’t been good in the playoffs and has a great D and running game…
also, who does flacco throw to…derrick mason…who else??
really, flacco has a subpar receiving corpse. even compared to campbell. you have derrick mason and then mark clayton?? he is inconsistent…kelley washington is a 3rd receiver at best…should be a 4th on good teams. and heap has been somewhat inconsistent at times the past couple years.
in Washington, you have the best TE tandem in fred davis and cooley, they have santana moss who can still go deep, randle el isn’t great, but as a receiver, not significantly worse than clayton….
Back to my point though, he isn’t great, but he definitely is better than terrible-to-average.
the average QB rating in the NFL over the last 2 years has been about 78 while flacco has been about 85…he has also had one of the lesser receiving corps in the league.
I will not say he is great, but he is definitely good and definitely at least better than average.
Derek Mason is good, just old. He is 1,000 yards a season guaranteed.
Mason is better than any WR that Washington has. Easily.
Flacco has one of the best running attacks in the NFL. I’m not saying that Flacco sucks or anything, I just think he is a game manager, yet people think he is in the class of good QB’s.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 24, 2010 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
Also, dumping the ball to Ray Rice and watching him scamper for 25 yards is pretty nice for a quarterback.
True. Ray Rice is one hell of a RB. Better than I thought he would be.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 24, 2010 12:38 AM EST up reply actions
1) When I said terrible-to-average QBs, I was referring to Kyle Boller and Joe Flacco. Kyle Boller was terrible, and Joe Flacco is average.
2) Smith was going to keep the seat warm for Flacco. Then he got sick. In the time Smith was sick, Flacco was historically bad — we’re talking one touchdown and seven interceptions in five regular-season games. If they thought Smith could have been even league-average, he would have gotten the starting job back.
3) I brought up Graham Harrell because everybody was talking about Smith’s college numbers. I know Graham Harrell isn’t an NFL quarterback (are you completely unable to detect sarcasm?). The point is that college numbers don’t mean that much. Both Harrell and Smith were in systems that inflated certain numbers.
2) Smith was going to keep the seat warm for Flacco. Then he got sick. In the time Smith was sick, Flacco was historically bad — we’re talking one touchdown and seven interceptions in five regular-season games. If they thought Smith could have been even league-average, he would have gotten the starting job back.
I don’t agree. Flacco was their first round pick. He was starting. Why bench him? You have to expect him to struggle. The Ravens made the right call and stuck with their rookie. He came around and starting playing better.
What dumbass franchise would bench a first round QB in his first season starting?
Oh yeah…
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 24, 2010 12:36 AM EST up reply actions
You have a point there. I think, though, that it reinforces the fact that Smith was never anything more than a seat-warmer for Flacco.
Also, the Ravens were a championship contender that year. It’s not like the Browns, where we had no shot anyway. If they had gotten better QB play, they would have made it to the Super Bowl. In that situation, if you honestly think Smith can be a league-average QB, you postpone Flacco’s development for a year and go for a title.
Sure, the Ravens thought of Flacco as their QB of the future. They were willing to mortgage short-term struggles his rookie season for his long term development.
Once Flacco started the season, the decision to keep him there was all about Flacco and nothing to do with Smith.
Again, nobody is saying Smith is a franchise QB.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 25, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
It took awhile for Tressel to start him over Zwick. Zwick was the prototypical qb, while smith was just an athlete. I think the same rap is being used against Troy now. Given the opportunity to develop, he would be fantastic. He is also an excellent on-field leader.
by HenryDawg on Jan 21, 2010 9:38 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
It was truly amazing what he did in 4 (actually, I think 5) years at OSU. He got one of the last 2 or 3 scholarship offers for his class, recruited as an athlete, given, I believe 2.5 stars from rivals. His only contribution his freshman year was as a kick returner. By the time he was a senior, he was a very polished pocket passer, won the heisman, and probably is the best quarterback in school history.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 21, 2010 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
Rex Kern was better than Smith.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 21, 2010 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
I watched every Spring Game when he was at OSU, and he couldn’t throw worth a damn his freshman and sophomore years. I remember watching with my father-in-law and see him miss throws on short out patterns and him saying that if he doesn’t improve immensely then he’ll never play QB. But he did improve dramatically over his career, and it was remarkable to see him playing as a senior and the advancements he had made since he was a sophomore.
Which is why I chuckled whenever people were ready to give up on Pryor this season. He’s got plenty of time left to grow just like Smith did.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
I would start Smith over BQ any day
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 Jan 20, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
The more I think about it, the more I expect the Browns to go for a QB as a “value” pick, in the late first/early-mid second. (assuming good trade options). Again, I am assuming he kid is good…
But, having another young QB option for a Super Bowl run in 3-5 years is important. And if Quinn succeeds, we trade the kid for a future second rounder.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 20, 2010 11:29 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I’ve read some opinions that this is a deep QB draft.
Yup, I was one of those saying that at the beginning of the season. Unfortunately I didn’t know what I was talking about then, haha.
Tim Tebow
Let’s not mention Tebow and the Browns in the same sentence unless it’s like: “The Browns will never draft Tebow” ;)
Someone like (in order of my preference) Dan LeFevour, Colt McCoy, Daryl Clark, or Tony Pike.
I agree with your order, but I may put Pike before Clark. Not sure though.
Good post once again.
No Clark before Pike. For some reason me and DD are the only ones who actually think Clark is a gifted pocket passer for a mid/late round pick.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
Ok. The only time I’ve watched Clark is against OSU and to be honest I didn’t really pay attention to him.
In that game, I was pleased of his suckiness but for draft terms I think he’s pretty good.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
The draft was originaly projected by everyone to be a great draft for QB’s. And it would be, but Locker and Mallet stayed behind, McCoy and Snead sucked, Tebow was exposed and no one else emerged
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 20, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
I like Pike too, and used to have him above Clark in my mind. But those injuries just really soured me on him. Clark played in a more pro-style offense and looks like he can take a NFL hit without breaking into a million pieces.
Also, Clark has the arms of a linebacker, but throws like a quarterback. That’s just cool.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
He suffered a major injury — a broken left arm, no? Is Pike really anymore injury prone than anyone else?
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
He also had a large injury his Jr. Year but I can’t remember what it was.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
I would not be opposed to bringing in a proven veteran QB like McNabb(not going to happen) or someone else.
However, to even entertain the idea of getting rid of Quinn so we can start the season with a rookie QB or Troy Smith, who is still a rookie as far as I’m concerned, is just irresponsible! Is it possible that Smith or whom ever we may draft could be a better QB than Quinn? Heck yeah…for sure. But any case you can make to defend your optimism on Smith or Rookie John Doe’s potential can also be made for Quinn. Quinn has still not had a consistent chance to play. I can’t argue with the injury point, but I say we roll with him to begin this season and if that doesn’t work, then I’m down to be a super-homer and insist that my pro team pickup my favorite college team’s legend QB.
Hey... Cleveland happens.
I totally agree. Quinn is going to be so much farther along than any rookie, especially one you draft in the mid-second round or later, like I was advocating. That type of draft pick won’t depend on Quinn.
But I think you are missing one part: Holmgren’s analysis of Quinn. If Holmgren doesn’t like Quinn, and can get decent value- move him. The other way to look at your opinion is Quinn is very replaceable at this point. A guy like Troy Smith has about the same experience level, and probably as much potential at this point. So if Quinn nets us a 3rd rounder, for arguments sake, I’d say do it. Then you sign any of the veteran, marginal free agents above (or others) as either the backup to a franchise guy (McNabb) or the short-term starter.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I distinctly remember Quinn tossing a pick in the KC game. Maybe want to check that?
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Jan 20, 2010 12:28 PM EST reply actions
I distinctly remember Quinn tossing 2 picks in the KC game.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Jan 20, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
It is somewhat unfair to say that quinn has played 3 seasons and hasn’t played because he was ineffective.
2007: he didn’t really have a shot at getting the job that year. Derek anderson broke out as a star and was ridiculous so he didn’t have a shot then
2008: with the season lost, and DA not looking like his old self, crennel waited IMO way too long to put quinn in. the game he finally put quinn in as a starter, not only had he not taken a snap all year, but it was on an extremely short week (sunday to thursday). quinn was pretty good for a couple of games, but he had a freak injury and he suffered.
2009: Quinn was not looking horrible and then was pulled. his replacement was terrible and although I dislike how long DA got to be in there after he showed he was bad, the bye week to bring back quinn was a good Idea. then quinn wasn’t looking bad and managing the game well, but then he got injured.
Conclusion: Quinn never really got a fair shake at being a starting QB in the league till this year. yes he has been in the league for 3 years but crennel effectively kept him out of almost all of the first 2. Yes, he had a couple of injuries but I would not go so far yet as to call him injury prone. breaking your finger against someone’s helmet by throwing is rare and more of a freak injury. this leg injury he had this year doesn’t seem to be that common
I wouldn’t mind getting a Free agent to battle it out, but I have not closed the book yet on brady quinn
I agree with you here. But I also argue that when Quinn started the first 3 games of the season it was against 3 of the toughest defensive units. So Quinn got a very harsh introduction to the NFL…
Disagree.
2007: Quinn held out of training camp- that’s on him. Romeo was flipping coins between Charlie Frye and Derek Anderson during the preseason. If Quinn showed more, he could have won that job. But Romeo thought Charlie Frye AND Derek Anderson were much better options as of week 1.
2008: On one hand, I agree Romeo should have switched to Quinn sooner. On the other, Romeo and his staff didn’t think Quinn gave them the best chance to win until late in the year. With how bad DA was playing, that’s on Quinn too.
2009: Quinn barely won the job against the terrible DA coming out of camp. Again, this was a entire new coaching staff, and they couldn’t see much separation between the two. Given what we knew about DA, that’s saying some pretty negative things about how Quinn looked in practice. Reports out of camp matched this: Quinn didn’t look good throwing the long ball, missed open receivers and got picked too often.
My conclusion isn’t too far from yours. I’m not giving up on him totally. But the burden is on him to show me something. He hasn’t done much to support his case in the last 3 years.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 20, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
very good points. I am not saying he is the savior and we just don’t know it yet. I just think he deserves another shot.
When a better player sits on the bench in favor of a worse player, saying it’s “on him” is not a good point. However, it’s done a lot around here (Quinn, Harrison, etc), and I don’t understand why our 4-5 win coaches are assumed to be so infallible.
In short, nothing from the first two years is “on Quinn.” If he had been to camp the first day in 07 he’s still not the starter week one, and after week two no one else was sniffing the job.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I totally disagree. 2 Head Coaches and multiple offensive coordinators have evaluated Brady Quinn very closely. He has failed to impress them, almost constantly for about 3 years.
Quinn has failed to win the job convincingly in training camps and preseasons. He has failed to keep the job during the regular season. And he has failed to do so with absolutely horrible competition.
Nobody is considering Mangini or Crennel infallible. But, like I mentioned above, the assumption is that Quinn has failed to separate himself from Derek Anderson’s level by all that much. If you disagree with this position, you need to back it up. The burden is on him, or those that want to argue for him.
I really do think the hold out put him in a bad spot. At the very least, I believe he would have had a shot at second string. And 2007 through today would have gone very differently (Not sure if it would be better).
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 20, 2010 11:07 PM EST up reply actions
Quinn will still have opportunity to prove us wrong whether it be with the Browns or elsewhere. Right now, it’s on him to show us something.
With regards to what? Him getting a chance to prove elsewhere? If he never gets a shot anywhere, then we can assume that the totality of pro personnel talent evaluators deemed that he wasn’t good enough, which would be sufficient for me to conclude that he isn’t very good.
I meant with the Browns. But I would agree, if he doesn’t get a shot anywhere, it would be sufficient evidence for me as well that he probably just couldn’t hack it.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
I think this is a bit revisionist. The year he was drafted, I think the logic was to not to throw the rookie to the wolves; thus, DA was handed the reigns. We miraculously went 10-6, so they stayed with the same horse out of the gate in 2008. Quinn was then picked for 2009. Did he ever win the job convincingly? I don’t know. But for two years he didn’t really have a chance and then he was put through a prolonged QB competition that was for show that transformed itself into the worst kept secret for ‘competitive reasons.’
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
quinn never won the job convincingly, you can’t say you don’t know that, or you’re being a bit revisionist.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 21, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
Quinn has never failed to win the job in training camps and preseasons. In the only chance he’s had, he won it. Whether you think it was convincingly or not is pure speculation, since you’re not a coach… though I’d characterize the 09 preseason as decisive (and many were begging him to be named the starter after 2 preseason weeks). It is also very important to note that in the only competition he won he did it in an entirely different/new system than the one in which he had spent his first two years. Essentially starting from scratch, a situation in which almost no QB looks great.
Being pulled after 6 quarters was a mistake by the coach, not a failure on Quinn.
Once he was re-inserted as the starter, he performed adequately for what at the time was a historically putrid offense.
The holdout is wholly meaningless, as he was never going to play in the first few weeks that year. Given what happened in week 2 and for the rest of 07, his next chance came after the highly anticipated 08 season had gone down the crapper. Then a fluke injury. Then 09. It’s all a bit convoluted, and that may make it sound like apologetics… but it’s not. And the complexity of the circumstances is exactly why simplistic explanations like “it’s on him” are erroneous.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
He was pulled because he was failing at QB. You may not like the fact that he was pulled, but you cannot absolve Quinn of any blame. That’s crazy.
He could barely beat out DA, who we all know is terrible, for the starting job this year. Now, I’m sure you’re going to blame that all on the coaches, but if Quinn was really that much better than DA then he would have shown it and the coaches would have seen it.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
He was pulled after 6 quarters. That’s not excusable for any first time starter. Let alone against the Vikings and Ravens. And DA proceeds to throw 8 interceptions in the second half of the Ravens game. Pulling Quinn was stupid, but letting DA start any game in 09 was idiotic.
Again, sometimes coaches are shown plenty and coaches ar wrong. Also, theres’ only so much you can “show” in practice, since it’s immensely different than a game. Why everyone assumes ever decision an inexperienced, defensive head coach makes is the right one, I’ll never know.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
psst. It turned out to be a good move for Quinn’s development.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 21, 2010 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
Quinn sucked in his starts. DA sucked afterwards. Quinn sucked less than DA sucked by not turning the ball over but still sucked. We won games. DA should be gone, Quinn will probably still be here. Quinn has not proven that he deserves to be named the starter based off his production. We hope we don’t have to take a QB in the first round because we don’t have much faith in the options. We hope we can snag someone through free agency, but don’t want to give up to much, or maybe we want to get lucky late in the draft and grab a guy who Holmgren has faith in.
Our QB situation sucks, but it has nothing to do with Quinn’s lack of playing time, hidden potential, etc.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Our QB situation sucks, but it has nothing to do with Quinn’s lack of playing time, hidden potential, etc.
It may still suck, but if Quinn was given this season 100%, our QB situation wouldn’t be as uncertain.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 22, 2010 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
I agree and I’m not against giving Quinn this season 100% if that’s Holmgren’s decision. I’m just not willing to give him a pass on his first 3 years in the league (regardless of how much in game action he had or 1st team reps he took) or just hand him the job to avoid a QB competition.
I want a quality QB and I feel that QB should earn that role. I don’t want a guy who we have to make excuses for why he hasn’t produced. Obviously some guys take longer to produce and show than others, but even if Quinn is the next Brett Favre or Tom Brady I don’t feel he should just be handed the job or be allowed to skate on the argument that he is “comparable to a rookie.”
Brady only got the start because Bledsoe got hurt. DA has gotten hurt and has sucked as a starter multiple times and Quinn has done nothing with those chances that proves he is a without a doubt starting QB.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I’m not saying that Quinn is going to be a star. In fact, if I had to wager money, I would bet against.
But the guy has thrown 353 passes in his career. Anyone who thinks that any front office or coaching staff can get a real grip on what kind of QB they have in 353 passes is smoking crack.
Quinn has been mishandled from the day he was drafted by his agents and his coaches.
Is some of it on Quinn? You betcha. He has had some chances, and he has failed to make plays. But he has never gotten an extended chance to sink or swim. QB is the hardest position in all of sports to play, yet we expect Quinn to be good right out of the box?
If you put Quinns career stats next to Mark Sanchez’s rookie stats it is very, very close.
Sanchez: 196-364, 2444 yards, 6.7 YPA, 12 TD’s, 20 INT’s, 63.0 Rating
Quinn: 184-353, 1902 yards, 5.4 YPA, 10 TD’s, 9 INT’s, 66.8 Rating
Yet Sanchez is considered a building block, but Quinn is considered a bust? Yes, Quinn could throw the ball downfield more, but maybe that why his INT’s are so low.
The kid needs one full season where it is his job, sink or swim. Not saying we can’t draft someone or bring in a veteran QB, but Quinn should be the starter in ’10.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 22, 2010 1:07 AM EST up reply actions
Tim Couch was mishandled and thrown into the fire.
I’m willing to give Quinn the benefit of the doubt and a chance, I just don’t think he should automatically be handed anything if there is a chance that we can acquire a player that can provide competition.
Right now I’m petrified of going into the season having Quinn and Ratliff as our only viable options at QB.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Yes. the idea of signing a veteran backup is very good, especially when you consider that quinn has been hurt the last 2 years. we don’t need to go out and get McNabb but if we get a guy like hasselbeck or jeff garcia, I would be more than happy
I said this somewhere else, but, Garcia? No thanks.
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 Jan 23, 2010 3:21 AM EST up reply actions
Yet Sanchez is considered a building block, but Quinn is considered a bust?
Because the Jets committed to Sanchez — they actually made a decision, unlike our Browns.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 9:16 AM EST up reply actions
But it is far from clear if that was a good move by the Jets.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 22, 2010 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
Oh, absolutely. But I think the point was about how the perceptions are so wildly different.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
I thought our decision was to let Quinn sit. Then DA had his mirage Pro Bowl season. Then DA sucked. Then we had a competition between two less than stellar QBs, Quinn won, sucked, DA took over, sucked worse, Quinn got the job back, had a few good games, didn’t turn the ball over, we won.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Doesn’t sound like we are shooting too straight.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
You’re free to correct. I used the words “I thought.” If you have a different recollection or if I left something out i won’t be offended if you correct it.
I just want to have some clarity on Quinn’s tenure as a Brown as I feel it will shine some light on what he has endured, earned or deserves moving forward.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
No, I thought I was agreeing with you that the QB situation has been a mess.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
you can’t compare quinn and sanchez. i know quinn doesn’t have a ton of game experience, but the bulk of those throws were with 2 years of practice time.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 24, 2010 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
I actually think they are pretty similar quarterbacks.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 25, 2010 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
This is exactly right. That’s why Mangini’s kneejerk reaction in Week Three was so foolhardy.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
The only reason I would have kept starting Quinn was in order to finally find out what we have in him, bonus money be damned.
3 years and we still don’t know if he is any good. We have an idea, but we really still have no idea.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 22, 2010 12:36 AM EST up reply actions
We have an idea, but we really still have no idea.
while i know what you meant, that is poor wording.
I also think we know he’s not “good.” he may be average, possibly, but he’s not good.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 24, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
It is a bit convoluted and a bit complex. I’m all for appreciating the details and circumstances and avoiding the quick, simplistic explanations. I don’t think I tried to simplify it.
Quinn’s circumstances have never been ideal to succeed in the NFL. If he didn’t hold out, if there was a better veteran starter here at the time, if the coaching staff didn’t change so much, if DA didn’t have a faux-great 2007, and if he didn’t get injured twice, Quinn would have had better odds. But while each of those things can explain away some of his struggle getting on the field and staying on the field, none of them positively show any promise.
The best we can say is that he performed ok in 2008. He won (although, I still say by the slimmest of margins) the job in 09. And he perfomed ok in his second stint of 09.
I need more in the positive evidence column.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I totally disagree. 2 Head Coaches and multiple offensive coordinators have evaluated Brady Quinn very closely. He has failed to impress them, almost constantly for about 3 years.
I hate to belabor the point, but you could replace “Brady Quinn” with “Troy Smith” and it would still be accurate.
That’s fair.
Like I’ve several times through this thread, I think the value of Smith and Quinn are about equal in terms of players and their ceilings. Difference is, Quinn is under contract and may still be a little overrated, meaning he could bring us back something in a trade. Smith is a free agent and may be available for cheap.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I think Quinn holding out screwed him over in the end. He probably could’ve been starting in ‘07 and then maybe this whole mess wouldn’t have happened.
Oh yeah. That hold out really put him behind that year. He totally could have capitalized on the Frye/Anderson suckiness before the season, grabbed the job, and never looked back.
Instead, Anderson turned into a faux-Pro Bowler for a season and teh QB situation has been a mess ever since.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
So true, and yet rookies continue to do this year-in and year-out. Where would Sanchez and the Jets be if he held out? When reminded of the hold out I can’t feel sorry for Quinn.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 20, 2010 1:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Definitely not. The holdout has had no affect on his career path whatsoever. The entire organization was new, and they were scared shitless about “Couch-ing” their new first round QB. And after week 2, he had no chance until far into 08, b/c of Anderson’s fluke year.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
The hold out probably had an effect on his getting acclimated to the team (staff), the game (plays, speed, etc.), and his teammates. Which I would argue, although it might not have had an effect on whether or not he was to start, it definitely had an effect on his growth and progression as an NFL QB.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
He hasn’t done much to support his case in the last 3 years.
He hasn’t gotten much chance. Your own history on Quinn with the Browns (that hews the corporate line quite closely) affirms this. The travesty is in that we still have unresolved, unanswered questions about Quinn’s ability and whether or not he should be our QB.
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
Brett Ratliff hasn’t had much chance. The coaches are able to ascertain how much chance these players deserve because:
a. They are professionals at evaluating who gives a legit shot at winning
b. They watch these guys in practice every day, which counts
I should add that I think Holmgren will be the most credible person the new version of the Browns have ever had in determining who deserves a fair shot at playing the Qb position.
Hasselbeck and Favre=Prac. squad QBs before Holmgren.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
This could easily flipped to say Quinn has impressed the professional evaluators enough to win, on numerous occasions, the starting role. But it’s either been derailed by injury or the slightest adversity, i.e. the first half of the Baltimore Ravens game.
My argument is less about Brady Quinn than it is about making a damned decision — Quinn, Ratliff, veteran QB, Troy Smith, Roger Dorn, whomever. If we know the answer, okay, let’s move to wherever that decision takes us. If we don’t, let’s at least stop suggesting we do because of ‘professional evaluators’ and ‘practice.’ Because we clearly don’t seem to know yet.
by Western Reserve on Jan 20, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
I am saying the professionals probably know, but we don’t. This could be the explanation for why Quinn hasn’t received a fair chance…because they determined he isn’t good enough. Why then does he keep getting time? Lack of a better option at present.
by Roger Dorn on Jan 20, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
exactly. he hasn’t exactly “won” the starting job at any point. He’s basically had it handed to him because our other options were so terrible.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
When has he “won” the starting role on numerous occasions? He was promoted to starter in ’08 because DA was terrible. He won a QB battle that lasted until the last preseason game because, evidently, neither QB was that much more impressive than the other one. He lost his job because of terrible performance and was given it back only because DA was even worse. It is completely false to say he won the starting job on numerous occasions.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 20, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
It is completely false to say he won the starting job on numerous occasions.
This argument is simply about the definition of the word ‘won.’ Do you want to go through every competition in recorded history and make determinations about whether someone ‘won’ because you subjectively thought they were good and differentiate that from when someone ‘won’ because you subjectively thought the opponent was simply bad?
win verb. to get possession of by effort or fortune (emphasis my own).
If that isn’t satisfactory enough for you, here’s at least two occasions:
1) end of 2008 season by Crennel;
2) beginning of 2009 season by Mangini.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 9:58 AM EST up reply actions
I only count one, in 2009. The end of last year doesn’t matter. How did he “win” the job in the offseason? I was arguing about the word “numerous”, and winning a job once is not numerous.
And, yes, of course it matters how bad the opponent was. Winning the QB competition with DA doesn’t mean that you’re going to be a good NFL starting QB. That’s what we want. Who cares if he’s better than DA if he’s not good enough to be our starter? That’s irrelevant.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
If you only qualify being the named the Week One starter as winning, then yes, by your definition, you are right — it only happened once, in 2009. But he won the job mid-season in 2008 and held it until his injury, he was reaffirmed as the starter for 2009 despite the injury and then he was named the starter for 2009 under a new administration. As Quinn’s being named the starter happened multiple times, I chose the word “numerous.” It sure sounded like you may have had some issues with the word ‘win’ — still does.
I’d concede as much that sometimes he’s backed himself into the starting role. Certainly if in 2008 DA could have had a repeat of his 2007 year and the Browns won 10 or more games, Quinn would have never even gotten a shot. That’s how it goes. The point is, yes, professional evaluators have selected him as their starting QB. If it’s not working out, if it has no future, let’s move on.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t say he won the job in 2008. He was named the starter because DA was terrible; how is that “winning” the job? So every time a backup gets a start because of poor performance of the starter, that means he won the job? I guess if you want to define “winning the job” as any time Quinn started a game in his career then you’d be right, but that’s not the defintion that most people would use.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
I think he is referring to the fact that Crennel announced Quinn the starter for 2009 after his season ending injury in 2008. It was a bizarre announcement, but he did say it.
I know he said that, but it was at the end of the season and Crennel was then fired so it really didn’t mean anything.
He is saying that Quinn won the job by taking over when DA sucked, and I don’t think that is anybody definition of “winning the QB job.”
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Yea, I would strongly disagree that he won the job away at that point. He won the job because we needed a spark or else the team was in danger of spiraling to a losing season potentially costing Crennel and/or Savage their jobs. (Happened anyway)
That’s my whole point. You can only say Quinn won the starting job numerous times if you consider every time he was named the starter him “winning the job” and I don’t think most people would agree with that defintion. Being named the starter by default is not winning the job.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
I conceded as much that there have been instances that he has backed his way into the job.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
That is the third time now you have put the word ‘win,’ or some conjugated form thereof, in quotes, and it just takes us right back to where we started. Of course, when I answered the first time, you shifted the subject to “numerous.” I don’t know what to tell you.
I think the instances of injury are probably a different case — and I think you know this but are bringing it up merely for argument’s sake. Then again, Brady took the job from Bledsoe, for example, and then subsequently kept it, so sometimes a player has to be opportunistic.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
What are you talking about? I didn’t shift any arguments. My point, as I said all along, is that I don’t think being named the starting QB during the season because DA was playing terrible should be considered winning the QB job. There was no competition; he was the backup and he replaced the starter who was performing poorly. So Quinn has only won one QB battle and that was before the 2009 season. Therefore, I don’t see how you can say he has won the QB job numerous times.
Is that clear enough?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
Again, we are right back to where we started. You apparently don’t agree with two things: 1) that a ‘win’ can be achieved by mere fortune, and; 2) that Quinn won the job numerous times. The first point is merely definitional and the second is a prohibition put in place by your own definition, e.g. instances where Quinn won the job mid-season.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
Right, that’s what I don’t agree with. I guess if you want to make up your own definition of “winning the job” then you are correct. But, as I said many times, I think most people would agree that backing in to the job doesn’t mean he won it.
So, I just want to get this straight . . . . any time Quinn started a football game that means he won the job? Does the same hold for all football players, or just him? Did Charlie Frye win the starting job in Oakland or did he simply start because Russell was so terrible? Did Mike Adams win the starting cornerback job or did he only start because McDonald couldn’t tackle? Under your definition, the NFL is full of backups who “won” starting jobs because the starters were awful.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
I made up no such thing. Again, if you would like to go back and pick ‘true’ winners and losers in accordance with your value system, be my guest. You wholly dismissed one instance I gave you for Quinn winning the job.
It comes down to this:
It is completely false to say he won the starting job on numerous occasions.
You said this so matter-of-factly. Problem is, it was wrong. It’s wrong as a practical matter, and it’s wrong by definition, as I demonstrated.
Gaining a position in football is sort of a zero-sum game. You might win a position going away, or you might win one on someone’s error or under-performance. If you are that caught up on the definition of the word, making an appeal to ‘most people’ isn’t particularly helpful.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
It seems as though you’re the one making up the definition, not me. You have not demonstrated anything other than your opinion of what it means to win a starting position. By your definition, DA has also won a starting position numerous times. Do you want him to be our starting QB?
If I have this correctly, you believe that any time a player starts an NFL game that means he “won” the starting job. Is that correct?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not going to apologize on behalf of the dictionary.
Yes, DA has won the starting role numerous times. No, I don’t want him to be our starting QB.
Did Kurt Warner win the starting job, or did Matt Leinart lose it? We could do this all day.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Please show me how the dictionary fits your definition.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 9:34 PM EST up reply actions
You’ll have to navigate the thread and find it yourself. We’ve already gone ’round in a circle once.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 9:18 AM EST up reply actions
I pretty sure the blog moves vertically.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 22, 2010 9:30 AM EST up reply actions
No, you are avoiding the question because you don’t have an answer.
I would really like to know why you think the way you are defining “win” (backing in to the job any time the starter fails) matches the dictionary definition more than my definition (winning an open competition between two or more players). You simply claiming that you are right doesn’t prove anything. So you can ignore my question all you want, but you never answered it.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 22, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
win verb. to get possession of by effort or fortune (emphasis my own).
I am now quoting myself because, as I’ve said, we’ve already been through this.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
OK, but when someone says “winning the QB job” that’s not the version of “win” they mean. You know that. A player doesn’t win the QB job like they win the lottery or a raffle. When you say “Quinn won the starting job numerous times”, you don’t mean he got lucky and won by fortune. At least, nobody reading would think you mean that. And that’s my point.
That’s like saying “Quinn is gay” and when someone says that is false because he has a girlfriend you say “I mean the happy version of gay” and then start quoting the dictionary to prove that you are right.
So you can say I’m changing the argument and making up definitions all you want, but you know I’m right. Numerous people on this thread have agreed with me about what “winning the QB job” means.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 22, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
That’s like saying "Quinn is gay"
Wow. I think you’ve reached a new low.
Quinn getting back in this year, for example, did require some fortune — DA being insufferably bad — which, again, I’ve conceded. But, after coming in during garbage time late in the Chicago game, do you really think he hadn’t won back the job at any point over the course of the next six games that he started? If you don’t agree, fine, we have a difference of opinion. But I absolutely did not say anything that was “completely false.”
If you want me to simply say you’re right, it’s not going to happen. Namely because you’re not.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
How is that “a new low”? I didn’t call Quinn gay, of course, I was just making an analogy on the different meanings of words. I thought you would be able to understand that.
I just don’t like your arrogance that you are the only one with the correct definition of the word, because winning by fortune is NOT how the word was used in your case. And you know that. Yet you continued to say that I was making up defintions and that is what upset me. If you would have just said “I don’t see it that way, let’s agree to disagree” then I would have been fine. But you had to arrogantly state that you had the right definition and everyone else was wrong (since multiple people in this thread have agreed with me).
So, yes, according to the definition that most people would use, saying Quinn won the QB job numerous times is false. If you want to use your own definition that’s fine, but my statement is true for the way most people would interpret that statement.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 23, 2010 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
All of this is clearly true.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 23, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
First, “gay”? That really was the best you could come up with? Second, your example wasn’t even relevant. You chose a word that has obvious double meaning, unlike the word ‘win.’
My arrogance? I simply cited the dictionary. Again, I don’t feel the need to apologize on the dictionary’s behalf just because the definition of a word doesn’t suit your argument. On the other hand, here’s an example of your arrogance:
It is completely false to say he won the starting job on numerous occasions.
Like a bull in a china shop. Of course, I took exception with your claim. And while we may have differences of opinion on the issue, I think my opinion is far from being “completely false” as you so triumphantly claimed.
Lastly:
If you would have just said "I don’t see it that way, let’s agree to disagree" then I would have been fine.
Same to you.
by Western Reserve on Jan 23, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
Enough with the “citing the dictionary”. The context in which you use the word is clearly important, which is why there is a big difference between winning by effort (like winning a football game) and winning by fortuce (like winning the lottery). Stop pretending those are the same thing when they are most definitely not.
With so many people backing up my view (and nobody supporting yours), are you really going to continue this nonsense?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 24, 2010 12:28 AM EST up reply actions
Of course context is important. I don’t see ‘effort’ and ‘fortune’ as mutually exclusive here. Your lottery example is taking it to one logical extreme. In this case, you need a little of both. ‘Effort’ : you got to come to practice everyday, for example. ‘Fortune’ : you can’t have Peyton on your team; Bledsoe gets hurts, etc.
I don’t think most people would have bombarded a casual and ultimately subjective comment with an absolute the way you did.
by Western Reserve on Jan 24, 2010 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
What do you mean by “bombarded”? I said your statement was false then gave the reasons why I thought that way. What is wrong with that? That’s what we do on here.
And don’t say now it was a “casual and subjective comment” when the whole time you were insisting that you were right because you used the dictionary definition and claiming that I was making up meanings for words. You didn’t give any room for a different interpretation. So don’t pretend now that different views are allowed because that’s not the way you acted for this entire thread.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 24, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
My words:
If you only qualify being the named the Week One starter as winning, then yes, by your definition, you are right — it only happened once, in 2009.
I said this early on. Thus, your suggestion that I didn’t allow “different views” appears to be untrue. Your view on the other hand — proclaiming my view “completely false” — is the view that doesn’t allow for any “different interpretation.”
And don’t say now it was a "casual and subjective comment" when the whole time you were insisting that you were right
I still insist my comment was wholly factually right, though I recognize there is difference of opinion on the matter, such as yours.
by Western Reserve on Jan 24, 2010 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
You are taking Brad’s words way out of context.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions
Semantics have no effect on the fact that Quinn was our starter and then lost the job and then got the job back because the other option sucked. If it were possible to bring someone else in at the time, Quinn would have still been on the bench.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
If it were possible to bring someone else in at the time, Quinn would have still been on the bench.
That’s how it works though. You play with the team you have, not the one you wish you had.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 9:25 AM EST up reply actions
Quinn won the job once. This past preseason. That’s the only time he has competed for a spot and gain said spot over another player’s efforts.
How can you say someone won a job when the only reason they were in a position to get the job is because they had previously sucked enough to lose the job?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
This has already been hashed and rehashed.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 9:21 AM EST up reply actions
And you still haven’t given us an answer, other that your own definition of “winning the job”.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 22, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
look, you can argue semantics all day, but you need to give this up. by a strict definition, quinn has won the job numerous times. you could even say that he won it when crennel named him the starter before he was fired.
I’m on your side, i don’t think those wins should really count, because quinn didn’t do a whole lot to win the job, but by a strict definition, quinn has won the job multiple times.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 24, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
and before you ask me to name them: This preseason he won the job, after the bye week he technically won the job, and romeo crennel had said he won the job before getting fired. thats 3 times.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 24, 2010 11:38 PM EST up reply actions
And I also have no idea what you mean about me bringing up injuries because I never said anything about that. Are you confusing me with someone else or just making things up now?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
I confused a single line:
So every time a backup gets a start because of poor performance of the starter, that means he won the job?
Upon responding I mistakenly thought you had said, ‘when a starter loses his job due to injury.’ Although, when a starter does underachieve and is replaced, yes, the next guy has effectively won the job.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
this fight is between you guys, but if i may: WR – i think its a stretch to say BQ “won” a job simply because the other option was awful. winning involves earning a victory; BQ was sitting on the bench, DA was completely useless, so BQ got to come back in. He was the same guy, he was just found to be the lesser evil at that time. calling this a win seems a illogical. however, i commend you for sticking to your guns.
My basic premise is that Quinn won the job multiple times. I cited Crennel naming him at the end of 2008 and then Mangini naming him for 2009. But also, the instances where he was named mid-season, take this season for instance, he came in, played well, managed some football games, we maybe even won a few. I consider this him winning the job back. Now, if we had Peyton on our team, does Quinn get a shot? Nope. But he’s not competing against Peyton; he was up against DA.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
thats where we get into a disagreement. i don’t feel getting put back in (after having been replaced) because the coach realized the other guy was historically putrid, is really a victory. agree to disagree, i guess.
That is the exat same argument that I was making . . . why can’t you say that to me? Why did you have to accuse me of changing the argument and making up definitions when I’m using the same definition that everyone else would use in that situation?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 22, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
I’d be happy to.
You insisted I said something that was “completely false” to which I took exception because I think it was an inaccurate characterization of what I said. It was nothing personal, I just have elected to continue to explain myself — even though I’ve felt we’ve gone in circles a few times.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
All I have to say on the subject is that having something handed to you does not constitute a win.
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 Jan 23, 2010 3:26 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly. That is all I’m saying. And it seems like everybody excpet WR agrees with me.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 23, 2010 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
ask the jets about that.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 24, 2010 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
Also:
If you only qualify being the named the Week One starter as winning, then yes, by your definition, you are right — it only happened once, in 2009.
My words.
by Western Reserve on Jan 23, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions
The coaches are able to ascertain how much chance these players deserve
To some extent I agree, but there are always exceptions. Look at the case of Jerome Harrison for an immediate example. Who knows how he will end up, but he looked pretty good despite two different head coaches deciding that he wasn’t a starting running back based on what they saw from him, using their skills as professional analysts. Who knows how long it would have taken for Tom Brady to see the field if he hadn’t benefitted from an injury to the starter? It does happen.
I agree it happens, ideally you have coaches that don’t make mistakes like that. Let us not forget that Harrison was injured in the early part of the season, and probably had to work his way back into shape.
That said, there is still no explanation to me why after a strong Cincy game, that he could not have seen more carries.
I do think oversights are possible, but hopefully limited.
Just like they did with Jerome Harrison. Doh!
by HenryDawg on Jan 22, 2010 5:16 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I did mention that coaches had the potential to be wrong in a later comment. I do think Harrison is very talented, but let’s not forget a few items that partially absolve the coaching staff
1. Harrison began the season injured
2. Harrison apparently was struggling greatly with pass blocking, and worked harder at the encouragement of the current coaching staff to the point where he was doing an above average job
3. Our blocking between the offensive line and Vickers was outstanding down the stretch. It’s possible any average running back could have done a very goob job (although I do think Harrison’s speed and agility are a good fit behind a powerful o-line.)
I still think BQ has leadership qualities and can be coached by Holmgren to be a decent starter in the league. Maybe he can’t carry a team on his shoulders, but he can take care of the ball and make good decisions. And I think he has enough accuracy to keep opposing backfields away from the line of scrimmage. So, I think there’s enough there to work with so that we don’t have to roll the dice until the next great qb comes along.
I want a QB that can carry the team on his shoulders. And he’s not great at taking care of the ball.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Jan 20, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
brett favre?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
I also want a qb that can carry the team on his shoulders, we don’t really differ there.
But, what we want and what is attainable in the short term can be different things. And a qb’s taking care of the ball is something that comes with experience and coaching. It’s the kind of coaching that Holmgren may be able to provide BQ. Holmgren shall decide whether BQ is capable of improving his game enough to stick with in the short term. No amount of our stomping our feet will change that. I’m predicting that Holmgren will decide to stick with BQ for the short term.
Yup, this is it. His best traits were supposed to be his knowledge and accuracy, and he hasn’t shown that accuracy in the NFL so far. You just can’t be successful as an NFL quarterback if you miss as many throws as he does.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 20, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions
Nope. Because why question when you have Ratliff!
But in all seriousness, that’s an easy answer.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 20, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
i would, brady quinn is much more of a known quantity, and we know he’s not great, or even good. He could possibly be average, but i think Troy could possibly be good.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not a fair comparison because we don’t have to trade for BQ, while the Ravens would demand a pound of flesh for Smith. Smith would have to be enough better than BQ to offset whatever other talent we had to give the Ravens.
This. Same applies to Kolb.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 20, 2010 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t disagree with this. I wouldn’t give up much more than a lower round draft pick (maybe a five). Any more than that, and the risks outweigh the reward.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 11:53 PM EST up reply actions
I would probably pick up troy.
I found interesting Facts on him: he won the heisman by one of the largest margins in history and was the lowest heisman winner drafted in 15 years (out of players actually drafted that played in the NFL).
his real only knock was his height. if he was 6’3’’ he would have been an easy first rounder.
here are some great QBs 6 feet and under:
Joe theismann
Drew Brees
Doug Flutie (he was 5 ft 9 in)
Fran Tarkenton.
Many others had good careers in the NFL and there are some greats with smith’s height. yes, he also doesn’t have that great of an arm, but very few of those guys did. they relied on accuracy and scrambling ability, 2 of smith’s greatest skills
This is exactly my point above- don’t know if you just were building on it or came to the exact same conclusion.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Funny. Type in “Theismann” to the “search posts and comments” at the top of DBN and you get just two hits. Your post above and mine from November:
http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2009/11/5/1117448/the-regression-of-derek-anderson#23986542
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
that was a very good post. I do agree about the points. smith was very accurate in college. plus he has mobility which is one thing a lot of the small QBs (like tarkenton and theismann) had.
Also, would you object to garcia as a FA coming here?? he could still be decent i think, but no one has really seen much since ’08
Garcia? No thanks.
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 Jan 21, 2010 1:18 AM EST up reply actions
maybe…he is no spring chicken but the last 3 seasons he has started, he has had a QB rating of over 90 in all of them.
Charlie Frye beat out Garcia for the starting role last time he was here. Need I say more?
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 Jan 21, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
But then again now that I think of it that may have been Dilfer, either way, I don’t like Garcia, he sucked last time he was here.
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 Jan 21, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure why you guys want Smith. I never really thought he was that great to begin with. Then again, I’m not a true Buckeye fan either.
He couldn’t do any worse than our scrubass QBs though.
If we were to draft a guy, I think LaFevour, J. Johnson, Hall, or Pike.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
To be clear, I don’t really see us getting Smith and I don’t know that he is that good of a fit for the Browns, unless someone else really wants Quinn.
I just noticed him on the free agent list and thought he had as much upside as anyone on that list. After Campbell and Orton there isn’t anyone that was a starter last year. So if we are looking for experience after ridding ourselves of Quinn and DA, someone like Smith would be our only option.
Also, would you please tell me why you don’t think he was “that great to begin with”. I mean, he was clearly, objectively, awesome in college. Where does your perception come from?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
You mean Roy Williams?
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 Jan 20, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
I would almost kill to see someone at the game wearing a Jets Jersey with a #17 on it with Williams as the last name, just so I could laugh my ass surrounded by confused people.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I would be one of those confused people. did i miss something here?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2010 11:55 PM EST up reply actions
The kissing suzy kolber story where ryan says Edwards’s new nickname is Roy Williams because he sucks.
Coach Ryan Gets An Unwelcome Visitor
And Braylon Edwards, your new nickname is Roy Williams! BECAUSE YOU FUCKING SUCK!
The more I think about it i’d be willing to pay $1 for one of those jerseys for myself.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
haha i read that it just didn’t click in my head, thanks
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 21, 2010 9:36 AM EST up reply actions
Personal prejudice
Frankly that is what this thread is full of from Ryan and everyone else. Why anyone would think Troy Smith is a possible savior is beyond me. If he was so promising Joe Flacco would not have been drafted. Every QB has warts. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Holmgren has a good record on QBs while the last two so called evaluators Crennel and Mangini do not. SO I am thinking he is a lot better at it and leave it to him.
Where has anyone mentioned Troy Smith as a savior? I only am defending him as a POTENTIAL solid NFL starter. Nothing more, and I challenge anyone who thinks he is anything less.
Once again, he was going to start over Flacco if not for getting sick in 08.
Holmgren does have a great record with QBs. Arguably the most accomplished and successful QB guru in the history of the sport. I totally want to leave it to him. And, like I said in the article above:
Mike Holmgren will likely influence the QB decisions more than any others. Like he said, he knows a little something about quarterbacks. And the first evaluation he’ll have to make is on Brady Quinn. That is probably the key to this puzzle.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Nobody here is prejudiced. What are you talking about?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 20, 2010 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not a Buckeye fan and I would be willing to try Troy Smith at a low cost. I would be willing to bring in any QB that has spent time on an nfl roster if the cost is cheap and Holmgren is doing the choosing.
The key here is that no one believes Troy Smith is a possible savior. His benefit is that he has displayed some competency and would be a low cost option that Holmgren (where our faith lies) is choosing to bring in to try and use in lieu of drafting a QB high in the draft or placing all his eggs in the BQ basket (with barbecue sauce or gravy, your choice).
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I’m not sure what determination Holmgren and crew will make regarding Quinn but looking at it from the outside, I would not be adverse to keeping Quinn in the starter’s seat for at least the start of the season and signing someone like Batch as a backup. (I think he’s available) That would hopefully give the Browns a decent enough stable to hold down the QB position for 2010 while using the draft to address other needs.
Charlie Biatch is too old. imo
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Jan 20, 2010 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
I really hope that “i” was unintentional.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
My finger must have jumped across the board and tapped it.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Jan 20, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
Even if Carlie Batch was 80, I’d still start him over any of the QB’s we have now.
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 Jan 20, 2010 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
Charlie
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 Jan 20, 2010 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
No you wouldn’t.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Jan 20, 2010 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
Holmgren and Heckert were busy today!!
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-browns-personnelhirings&prov=ap&type=lgns
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Jan 20, 2010 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
I always wanted Troy Smith as are QB! I was never sold on Quinn but figured he needed a chance to show himself.I for one think he can be good with good to great players around him.But as we all see the Browns do not have these type of plyers just yet.Can Quinn be good I think he can but will be a Orton type QB if he has talent around him.
I think T.Smith had that bad outing in the NC game held over his head then they wanted to nit pick that he was just alitle over 6ft tall.But yet he has the same type of make up that Brees had when he came out of Purdue.Only time will tell if Smith ends up on another team and does well I will be very happy for him and think if he lands some place that lets him get a chance to start he will show that he can QB in the NFL.
The thing that always stuck out to me about Quinn was his work ethic. From what I keep hearing, he’s a dedicated player who’s always the first one to come in, last one to leave. He’s constantly studying and trying to improve.
Sure, you can say the same thing about a ton of other guys in the league who didn’t turn out well. But to me those are some of the intangibles of a starting quarterback. Let Quinn get better, go through the whole off season as the unquestioned starter, let him go through the season, and then decide. The guy deserves this last chance at the very least.
The guy deserves this last chance at the very least.
Considering how many DA got, I might agree with this.
The more I think about DA the more I get pissed. I didn’t get drunk off the DA hype after 2007, for various reasons that have been stated by many, but i thought he would at least be competent.
DA sucks.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I agree there.I would like to see what he has to offer with a full year in a system and a fim hold on the QB spot with out any pressure of if you play bad we will put DA in.The man does need to get set in and let it fly and then see what we have.But I am still not agenst T.Smith as are QB as well.
by Brownsfan4ever on Jan 21, 2010 6:13 AM EST up reply actions
No, you can’t do that. With a player who looked as bad as Quinn did most of the year, you can’t plan on going in to next season with him as your unquestioned starter and not bring in anyone else to compete with him or even be a backup plan if he struggles again. The QB is the most important position on the team, and it’s a terrible idea to put all your hopes on an unproven guy like that with no other plan. You are taking a chance at throwing away the whole season if he plays like he did at the beginning of last season. No smart football executive would do that.
It doesn’t matter how dedicated he is and how much he’s trying to imrpove. That’s great, and I certainly hope it works for him, but you can’t expect that to happen. I have no problem bringing Quinn back and giving him another chance to show what he can do — if Holmgren thinks he still has the tools to be an effective NFL QB — but we need to acquire someone else as a backup plan if he doesn’t improve.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 8:50 AM EST up reply actions
Another QB competition? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. Name Quinn, pick up a veteran and name him, draft a QB and go with him — but make a decision and stick with it. Allow the team to coalesce around someone running the offense.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
Naming a starter <<<<<< Developing a QB the Browns can build around long-term
They aren’t mutually exclusive for sure, but our main focus should not be to avoid a QB competition.
This. It is much, much more important to find our QB of the future than to avoid a QB competition just for the sake of avoiding one. Players compete for spots on the team all the time and it doesn’t disturb the team at all. The worst thing in the world to do would be to make a premature decision and stick with it just to have cohesiveness, and have that decision turn out to be a bad one.
If Quinn, or any QB, can’t be successful when he’s competing for a job then he shouldn’t be playing in the league.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
The way I see it, among those on the current roster, Quinn should have the job. But if you go out and get a veteran, you should be doing it for the sole purpose of planning on starting him. And if you draft a QB it should be for the sole purpose of eventually starting him. We shouldn’t be acquiring QBs so we can run them through a competition that would be little more than an unnecessary distraction.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
So if we bring in a veteran, you want to hand him the job and not give Quinn any chance at being the starter? You said above that he’s won the job on numerous occasions so he’s obviously good enough to be a starting QB, so then why wouldn’t want to give him a chance to start next year even if we do bring in someone to compete with him?
I wouldn’t call letting two players compete for the starting job to determine who’s the better player an “unnecessary distraction.” I would say that’s very necessary. We’re probably not going to bring in a guy who’s a proven NFL star at QB, so why not let our players go through training camp and preseason so Holmgren and the coaches can determine who would be the better QB? What is so wrong with that?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, ultimately, I would like for Quinn to start next year. I think the problem with bringing someone in, if we are only going to start Brady Quinn anyway, is two-fold: 1) We’d have to spend to bring in a QB, and; 2) I maintain my view that another QB controversy would be an unnecessary distraction. A question mark at QB is a bigger deal than a right guard veteran getting bumped by a rookie or someone turning heads and taking a spot at corner.
I suppose I could see a scenario where we bring in a veteran for the sole purpose of nurturing Quinn. I could appreciate it this. I just would like some finality at the QB position, whatever that decision may be, so we aren’t going into Week One juggling the situation like we did this year.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that Mangini handled the QB situation poorly last season, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a QB competition this coming season. I’m pretty sure Holmgren will make sure that it’s handled better this time.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
To me, the only thing that makes that argument palatable is that you used Mike Holmgren’s name, and I have a lot of faith in him, especially at the QB position.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Finality doesn’t equate with the right decision as any Browns fan who as suffered through our QBs would know. The goal should be the right decision not finality. Everyone wants finality.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Finality doesn’t equate with the right decision as any Browns fan who as suffered through our QBs would know.
I beg to differ. We’ve had less finality at the QB position than we’d even like to know.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
all he was saying is that making a final decision doesn’t mean that decision is the right one.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 24, 2010 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
I’m all for avoiding an unnecessary distraction. But there are several reasons to bring in a FA QB short of just giving him the job, including:
1.) To provide competition and motivation to Quinn.
2.) To provide a better backup. QBs get hurt. Quinn has been seriously injured the last two years.
3.) At best, Quinn needs more time to show us something. If he sucks through 8 weeks, do you want the alternative to be Ratliff or bum off street?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I can meet you on #’s 2 & 3. I think there is probably more risk than potential reward on the first one.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
Right. Even if we’re unsure about Quinn, it is completely unfair to the rest of the team to not bring in anyone else and give Quinn the starting job with no other options just because we’re scared of having a QB competition. That is not fair to the rest of the players because you are not giving your team the best chance to win. You’re basically giving away the whole season — assuming Quinn doesn’t show significant improvement — just to prove to yourself that Quinn isn’t the guy. Holmgren is smart enough to know he can’t do that. He needs to have a backup plan.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
I hope Holmgren can make a decision on the QB position without having the team endure another QB competition. I think we are downplaying a bit how big a detriment that can have on a team, the offense especially, as far as leadership, familiarity and continuity.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
It’s a bigger detriment handing an unqualified player a starting position.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Then don’t give it to him; give it to someone else.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
And I think you’re downplaying how big a detriment it can be to have a bad starting QB.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
A QB competition in no way guarantees we have a good QB on our team either.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
Of course not. But having two average QB’s compete for a chance to start is better than having one average QB with nobody worthwhile to replace him if he fails.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps. But we could have two average QBs on the roster and still spare ourselves a prolonged QB competition.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
Nobody said it had to be prolonged. But we shouldn’t hand the starting QB job to anybody, unless we get a guy like McNabb.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions
True, it doesn’t necessarily have to be prolonged. There is a chance we’ll do just that though, i.e. just hand the starting QB role to someone. And that someone could be Quinn.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn’t guarantee a good QB, but it at least approaches a logical thought process in deciding whether or not the player picked will have success.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Evidence that that’s even true is probably flimsy at best. I guess I can see how it’s “logical,” but not having a QB competition isn’t inherently illogical either.
by Western Reserve on Jan 22, 2010 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
I probably shouldn’t have used the word success but I couldn’t think of another word. Probably should have said something like "the player picked will be the ‘one you want to place your faith in’ or something. Not really sure how to describe.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I have a hard time seeing the downside of bringing in a free agent.
Let him compete with Quinn, draft a QB that Heckert, Mangini and Holmgren like, and let him be the number three next season (think Dennis Dixon in Pittsburgh).
If FA QB wins the job, then we can finally wash our hands of Quinn, and move on. If Quinn wins the job, he has one final shot and we have a good back-up.
What is the downside?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 21, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t see any. Adding a quality player at any position will only improve our team. I really don’t see Holmgren not bringing in another QB because he’s worried about hurting Quinn’s feelings.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
We shouldn’t be acquiring QBs so we can run them through a competition that would be little more than an unnecessary distraction.
A QB competition would not be an unnecessary distraction. It might be a distraction but based off of our QB play it would be necessary. There’s no way that Quinn should right now be named the unquestioned starter for next year. What QB will we get in this draft that you feel comfortable starting the season with? Any veteran that comes in is not going to be a pro bowl player and most likely won’t be familiar with our system.
Positions should be earned for the sake of team quality.
As far as distractions the reason we sucked at the beginning of the year was not the QB competition is what the fact that we sucked.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
It’s not necessary though. There are many paths we can take that avoids a QB competition.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
On this i’ll put my faith in the team. If they feel they can make a decision without one then I’ll trust them.
I don’t believe Mangini has much faith in Quinn moving forward.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Not necessarily.
You seem to think there is some magical “proven veteran QB” we can bring in to start instead of Quin. That guy probably isn’t out there. Whoever we bring in probably won’t be good enough to be guarenteed the starting QB position, otherwise he wouldn’t be in Cleveland. Unless someone like McNabb gets cut and we can sign him, we’re probably stuck with someone like Jason Campbell or Kellen Clemens who haven’t proven anything more than Quinn has. Holmgren may decide to bring in one of those guys and let him compete with Quinn for the job. Or maybe they’ll find someone in the draft. But the point is there probably isn’t a guy out there who we can just hand the starting job and feel comfortable with that.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 7:30 PM EST up reply actions
I’m under no impression there’s a magical veteran QB out there. I’d just prefer to be sparred a lengthy QB competition.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
That’s what you seem to be saying. This was your reply above:
Then don’t give it to him; give it to someone else.
Of course you didn’t use those words, but you said that if Quinn isn’t going to be our QB then we need to find someone else. As I said, what if there isn’t anybody definitively better available? We’re supposed to stick with Quinn and not bring in anybody else as insurance in case he fails again? That’s not very smart.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 21, 2010 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
Right, if Quinn isn’t going to be our guy, we need to find someone else. If there isn’t anyone else who is better and available, yes, we stick with Quinn. If it is determined we need insurance, fine, but I still hope there isn’t a QB competition. Like I said, I’d prefer to avoid that.
by Western Reserve on Jan 21, 2010 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
You find someone else and determine who is better through competition.
A QB competition sucks, but it’s better than just handing someone the job for the sake of avoiding a competition.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
It’s hard for me to agree with a statement that someone who has performed less than stellar deserves anything. I’ve heard all the Quinn excuses and if that’s what you believe fine, but his performance when he has been in has not led me to believe he deserves anything. He might be successful if given those things, but he hasn’t done anything that proves that he deserves them.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I’m fairly hog certain that whether you think Quinn was given ample opportunity to shine or if you think he should get a full season in the starting role you have to agree, that ain’t no Carson Palmer back there.
Bingo.
Though Carson Palmer ain’t no Carson Palmer anymore.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 21, 2010 11:10 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t even think I want Carson Palmer back there.
Although, beggars can’t be choosey. (how the heck do you spell it? I-T)
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
choosey moms choose Jiff
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 Jan 23, 2010 3:31 AM EST up reply actions
Here's My Take
I agree with most that BQ has more of a chance to develop into a starting QB than DA. However, what I have seen would seem to indicate that this chance is very small. To me DA = Kelly Holcomb. He may be a backup that could come in occassionally and add a spark – but will disappoint if given the starting reins. So even though I like Quinn better, I would trade Quinn for a pick, keep DA as a backup, and draft Sam Bradford if he is available and Suh and Berry are gone.
with all due respect, that idea makes me want to jump off a cliff and shoot myself on the way down. DA as a backup to a rookie? that means:
1. DA is still on our team
2. we’re starting a rookie (which can work, but isn’t ideal)
3. said rookie is learning from DA (my head is now throbbing having typed that)
4. if the rookie gets hurt, we’re starting DA again (i just broke into a cold sweat having typed that)
5. DA is still on our team.
i’ll have to say no thank you, sir.
In addition: we’d still be paying Anderson’s ridiculous contract.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
In addition: we’d still be paying Anderson’s ridiculous contract.
This is the key fact that will likely result in Anderson getting cut. Unless he is willing to re-negotiate his contract down by a large margin the Browns would be crazy to keep him. His agent is probably out shopping him right now trying to come up with his market value. I just can’t imagine him being here next year for this and the other obvious reasons.
Brownsyup
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
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
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.
