DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns may pick starting QB sooner than later

Im starting to not care who is our roster when it comes to QB.. I do know this though...

1) Frye will be here
2) Quinn will be here (when he signs)

So Dorsey has the advantage that he has this rep of being a "coach" on the field.. and he can help with game plans and being the opposing teams QB...

and Anderson has the advantage that he has a strong arm.....

IMO.. the later can only take u so far... he had his chance to start last year and could not win any of those games... and the teams he started against were not ALL that IMO..

at first i took a strong stand that Dorsey would be the obvious one out.. but im starting to change my mind and say that he is an assett as a 3rd string QB b/c he's more familiar with the game according to you all.. lol..

The homers continue to amaze me!

Irony Alert! Irony Alert!

This from the guy who still has his Tim Couch "Fathead" on his bedroom wall........

To be honest Peen,I'd rather see him hired as a QB coaching assistant. Because we are in 100% agreement about his "smarts" and that he is most certainly an asset to this team IMO

But I think we both know that MANY smart,talented QB's at the college level,could not get their skill set to translate well in the NFL.But since it's quite obvious you feel that neither Frye/Anderson are barn burners,please consider this.

You quite vocaly,or should I say in type "question their ability" so highly,why is it that Dorsey rates third BEHIND these guys if he has these other "skills" you speak of for the NFL?

Personaly I like Dorsey,but it would scare the living hell out of me if we were ever in the position he were forced to play. Why? Because look at where he is on the depth chart. Look how productive the QB's rated HIGHER than him have produced.

I agree that he is smart. But no,I really don't want a third stringer who "accepts that role". I want ALL of our QB's to give it hell and have a burning desire to be the #1 QB. I want them ALL "trying to be the starter". But I do like a "team player" I think Dorsey is that and I think he's smart. But I'm not so sure he and the team wouldn't be better off with him on the coaching staff rather than taking up a roster spot.

JMHO

Quote:

---

he had his chance to start last year and could not win any of those games... and the teams he started against were not ALL that IMO..

---

Our season ended up against these teams last year .......

Cincinatti: (Frye) Result ... lost 30-0. Cincy ranked 30th in total defense.

KC: (Both guys played) Result ..... wom 31-29 OT. KC 16th in total defense.

Pitts: (Anderson) Result .... lost 27-7. Pitt 9th in total defense.

Balt: (Anderson) Result ...... lost 27-17. Baltimore 1st in total defense.

Tampa: (Anderson) Lost 22-7. Tampa 17th in total defense. Anderson injured.

Houston: (Frye) 24th in total defense. Result ....... lost 14-6.


I didn't really hear all that many people saying that the Pittsburgh and Baltimore defenses "weren't all that" too many times last year. Can you please elaborate on your qualifications for a team to be "all that" or not?

If a team is down to their 3rd string QB, they're screwed anyway. Very few (if any) teams can absorb a double hit at the position and continue winning consistently.

Very few (if any) teams can absorb a double hit at the position and continue winning consistently.

So why waste the roster spot? You know you can always go out and pick up a guy. Or use a guy already on the roster at another position. There's always a guy on the roster that used to be a QB.

Because you really need 3 qbs.

You still want to give yourself some chance to win....not to mention the top 2 players work the gameplan on a weekly basis and the 3rd qb works the other teams playbook during practice.

It helps to have a guy who can watch a few films and then go out and give us some practice time seeing and hearing many of the things they will see on gameday.

Really, there has to be a reason why the vast majority of teams have kept a 3rd qb for the last 50 years.

Pit...I am not saying Dorsey can't play...given the chance, I think he would do as our 2nd qb.

Quote:

---

The FO tried to call Condon 3 times yesterday and he never returned their calls.

---

I sthis something you read or is it something you know from inside thr org.? I read in an article that he was hard to get a hold of but to specifics.

Rizzo reported it this morning on WKNR and said it was a fact from inside the FO.

Quote:

---

Rizzo

---

That's all I need to read. I don't trust anyone with that name.

I believe it. The Rizzo thing is kind of an inside joke. That's my last name.

the 3rd QB has MANY MANY VALUES that no one really knows about it unless they THINK FOR MINUTE or maybe even two ....

one of them is that u want your #1 and #2 QB's running the plays your going to use for that weeks particular game plan ... while at the same time u want someone running the other teams plays to prepare your D for the game the following week ... this requires some time from the person running the scout team .... HMMMM ... who should we get to do that???? maybe the 3rd QB isnt such a bad idea and this is one of the reasons ..

WTF is Condon doing????? if hes not returning calls ... BQ should be FURIOUS WITH HIM .. thats 2nd grade crap .. and I dont believe Opie is a lair .. so i am sure it is true .. but it certainly makes no sense ..

I have already throw that at them...they don't see to understand that point.

WTF is Condon doing????? if hes not returning calls ... BQ should be FURIOUS WITH HIM .. thats 2nd grade crap .. and I dont believe Opie is a lair .. so i am sure it is true .. but it certainly makes no sense ..

I call it TOYING with them..thats all he's doing..he's toying with them..

I couldn't care less whether we have a 3rd QB or not. But don't try and tell me that the reason you can't have just 2 QBs is because that 3rd guy has to be there running the "scout" team every week. LOL

Get the famous "quality control" coach to do it. Get the water boy to do it. Sorry, if that's the best reason for a 3rd QB then it's no reason at all, IMO.

Possibly so......what we don't know is how many time Condon may have called the Browns and been told they were tied up in other talks.

Very true Peen. That's not mentioned anywhere. If the Browns are conducting themselves that way too, then they are acting every bit as amatuerish as Condon is being reported.

Sure we do. Never. Otherwise, Condon would have called a press conference by now to "report" on the lack of progress.

And just to play "devils advocate" we don't know "the messages left" that Condon "isn't responding to".

It could be the "messages left" are saying things that give Condon "no reason to reply"...................

ie........"Look,the accelerated bonuses based on incentives aren't going to change. So we need to look at other options".

Maybe the "messages" being left give Condon cause "not to respond".

In reality,none of us know for sure. Condon could have made it clear that certain points must change to reach a deal. If the messages he's being left state these points aren't going to change,that's a very logical reason as to why he's not responding.

JMHO

It's still VERY unprofessional to not return any of the messages. It's as simple as calling back and saying "if it doesn't change, there is no reason to continue calling me"

Still amateurish, IMO. I return all of my business calls, no matter the content, or my response. I also follow them up with emails as my legal department wants it all in writing.

BULLCRAP .... U still call back and tell them your stance hasnt changed .. it creates DIALOGUE and makes the other side feel thier not being IGNORED ... u like to feel IGNORED Pit??? its not like were asking him to fly in to repsond .. all he has to do is pick up the phone and take 3 mins to leave us a message ... and this i know .. if u CREATE DIALOGUE it INCREASES the chance of getting something done ....... so u CALL BACK ..

Peenie .. it says he didnt return the calls .. amd ;eaving us messages would be returning the calls .. if he was returning calls and leaving messages .. I would have said were having trouble getting together .. were playing phone tag ... but thats just me ...

this isnt the OLD FRONT OFFICE and coaching staff for that matter .. we have HONEST PEOPLE who dont speak out of both sides of their mouth's and LIVE ON WORD PLAY .. if it was the Don or bOtch speaking .. i;d be more inclined to give that theory some credence ..

otto .. i said thats ONE OF THE REASONS .... and OBVIOUSLY alot more important that u believe it is ... go ahead and think for that 2nd minute and see if it becomes more clear to u as to why the role of scout QB is MORE IMPORTANT than u think ... i'll give u just ONE HINT ... the guy running the scout team must be able to ACTUALLY THROW the football to a WR more than 2 yards awy .. so their goes the waterboy out of the pic ...

now go ahead and use the 2nd minute to thinnk about it .. and u if u need to .. go ahead and even use a 3rd ..

Maybe I just think a little different than some people about this.
(I guess that's the uinderstatement of the decade)


But IF I make it "abundantly clear" that certain points MUST be up to further negotiations before a deal can be reached.................

And IF the message I'm getting is that you are "refusing" to negotiate those points?

Then what would be the point of a meaningless phone call?

Diam

If we have a conflict in a negotiation and I made my points CLEAR from the beginning. And your messages show NO REGARD or willingness to address those points,answerring those calls would only show weakness and willingness on my part to indulge you based on your unwillingness to negotiate those points.

If that were to "hurt your sensibilities" I would feel you need to grow a much thicker skin when it comes to conducting business.


Now leave me a message saying we'll look those points over again (not making a garuntee),but a willingness to LOOK at them again? I'll return your call ASAP.



So you guys are possibly upset because Condon wishes to be professional enough NOT to want to do THIS!!????



Sorry,I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Then what would be the point of a meaningless phone call?

---

Maybe because you don't want your client to look even worse in the court of public opinion?

The point is, to not return, reportedly, 4 messages (and who knows, today it could be a couple more messages too), is completely and totally unprofessional and would get a lot of people fired from their jobs. That's the point.

so let me get this straight ... your contention is that Opie called and asked if Condon was willing to accept the offer on the table from yesterdaywith no changes to it??? *LOL* .. i find that hard to believe ..... lets do a dry run here to help me better uderstand what your saying ... (and this is just an example) we have 3 sticking points in the contract .....

1. Gauranteed $$$$ .. lets say the browns are at 7 mill and Condon is at 9 mill ....

2. Incentives to be earned and how ... lets say the Browns are at 3 mill and there very attainable ..... and condon is at 10 mill and 5 are shoe ins and 5 are real tough ...
3. Voidable years ... how many and what makes them voidable ... lets say the browns are at a 5 year contract with 1 year easily voidable and Condon is at 5 with 1 year easily voidable and a 2nd year real hard ...


so your premise is what ....

A. Opie called Condon and said what we offered is stil on the table and were not offering a cent more in gauranteed or incentives and were sticking to our guns on voidable years ... please call back and let me know its acceptable today even though it wasn't yesterday ...

and he made this same call 3 times yesterday ...

In this case ... IMO u still need to call back .. and say NO ... so they can hear the conviction in your voice .. PLUS when your on the phone .. SOMETHING GOOD MAY HAPPEN ... u never know ... they may go off in another direction and find out they can agree to sumptin thats a lot less smaller and that may be the thing that gets the ball rolling ..

but if this were the case .. I would'nt SLAM Condon for not returning the calls ... i think its STUPID and UNPROFFESIONAL ... and in NO WAY is it s SIGN OF WEAKNESS ... thats a phallacy ... but i could "LIVE" with it ...

And i highloy doubt this is the type of call OPie made ..

B. Opie called and said .. U know what ... we'll up the contract to 6 mill in incentives with the first 3 mill very easy and the second 3 mill very hard .. but we want U to give up the option of being able to void the contract after 4 years and we want to make it harder for u to void it in year 5 ...

If this is the case .. CONDONS BEHAVING VERY UNPROFFESIONAL in this instance ... and whats hes doing is DEAD WRONG ....

you gotta return PHONE CALLS BRO .... in order to get the deal done u NEED COMMUNICATION and DIALOGUE .. and thats just COMMON SENSE ...

now that I'm done and did all the leg work .. creat the scenario for me U believe that Condon should'nt return a phone call .. NO MATTER HOW UNPROFFESIONAL THAT IS ....

Simple....................

Pick a category

incentives
garunteed money
bonus amounts
bonus structure

If ANY of these were considered "case closed" by the Browns (not all four) and the Browns are "refusing to look at THAT part" of the contract,why return the call?

If any one of these are something that Condon feels is a MUST to get a contract signed,and IF the Browns are sayiong that "this one portion is non-negotiable",Condon is doing nothing more than beating a dead horse UNTILL the Browns say "okay,let's look at ALL of the parts of this contract?

In all honesty,I've told people the same thing in person AND on the phone. But they just keep trying to "sidetrack" me somewhere else. At that juncture,why waste my time by going over the same thing twenty times?

If anything,that's counter-productive,not productive.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here. Nor am I saying the Browns are "lying to us". But I will garuntee you one thing..............................

They are presenting the facts (or at least part of them) in a manner which reflects WELL on them and POORLY on Quinn.

You see the Browns have to answer to the fans and the press as well. And putting themselves in the "best light possible" while "applying the MOST pressure on Quinn/Condon" isn't dishonesty. It's their job to do in a business deal,like every other profession.

The point I'm making is,I'll bet you were not being "told ALL the facts" and we don't know the "whole truth". Most everything NEVER is as cut and dry as it's reported.

I agree wth everything u said about "being told all the facts" .. i just dont believe that we would call and ask for him to return our call based on seeing if he wants to accept yesterdays offer with no changes ... *LOL* ..

cause in your scenario ... if condon picked VOIDABLE YEARS as "untouchable" .... and we CHANGED the OFFER in another portion based on him conceding sumtin in VOIDABLE YEARS witch as u put it is UNTOUCHABLE .. then he NEEDS TO CALL BACK to tell us that ... REGARDLESS of his previous stance .. in negotiations like these my frined .. NOTHING is UNTOUCHABLE ... as in this world (unlike the world we live in ) ANYTHING can be BOUGHT and EVERYTHING has a PRICE ....

Quote:

---

This is good...we don't need both Anderson and Frye.

One or the other...Dorsey is good enough as 2nd string until Quinn moves to first team.

---

That was my thought... If we have Frye, Anderson, Quinn, Dorsey.... let's say for the sake of argument that 4-5 weeks into the season Frye isn't looking good... who do you put in when you yank him? Do you give Anderson a chance or do you go straight to Quinn? You're going to create anymosity either way...

I say pick either Frye or Anderson to start, shop the other for a 4th round pick and move on.....

To both you and Babe................

Firstly my assertion was that Phil said "certain things are unouchable".

ie.............We will not in any way raise escalaters based on performance. We will not negotiate any further in (pick whatever part you want to and insert here).

And you said exactly how I feel Diam. NO PART of a contract is "untouchable" or "locked" out of further negotiations. This "may be why" Condon is not answerring the phone calls. The message he's getting could be,"Look,we';re willing to look at B and C,but D is non-negotiable."

And it may very well be that "D' is the entire sticking point as to why "the deal isn't done".

I've never insinuated that the Browns "aren't willing to further negotiate". I believe they are. I believe they would MUCH rather raise his "base salary" than greatly enrich his "incentive bonuses". Purely from a business standpoint.

And from everything we've "heard" the deal is close. So there must be "one major point of contention". And no,I have NO WAY of knowing what that is. But IF I were to venture a "guess" it would be "bonuses based on starts and performance".

Fact is,starters get paid MUCH more than back-ups. Fact is,top 10 rated QB's get piad WELL!

Now I can't blame the kid or his agent for saying "If I start,I want to be paid like a starter". If I'm playing at "top 10 level" I expect bonuses in place that compensate for that.

Now Diam,you just got finished saying "how smart" Phil is. And I believe that. I also feel like Condon is a shrude customer as well. And I can see how logical it would be for Phil to be willing to negotiate in other departments in order to "avoid" incentive bonuses which COULD easily escilate Quinns contract by making tradeoffs elsewhere.

But I can see this being a "MAJOR" sticking point in these negotiations. And I can see how and why BOTH sides would be posturing over this.

And Babe,I do understand your logic here. And 99 out of 100 times,I would agree with you. But if the FACT IS,that "incentive bonuses are NOT willing to be addressed by the Browns",and they're trying to disuade or elude dealing with that subject,why return the calls?

IF Condon has made it PERFECTLY clear,that unless "that portion of the contract is open to further negotiations" and the message is clear that everything BUT THAT is?

There's a time to play "hard ball". And if the Browns KNOW that's the sticking point,IF the Browns KNOW they've made it clear "they won't further negotiate" that portion of the contract to Condon??????

Well,then they KNOW why Condon isn't returning their phone calls. Condon doesn't need to call them back and "remind them". By not answerring their messages,he's sent them one of his own.

This is some "hard core" stuff we're talking about here. Quinn isn't the Browns "employee yet". Both Phil and Condon are playing hard ball. Which means they're both smart and they're both trying to do their job to the best of their abilities.

The point is,this isn't about "good manners" It isn't about "communication". They both know where they stand. But there's "something here" that Condon WANTS to negotiate,that the Browns DON'T want to negotiate. When and if they're willing to,I'd bet money Condon will return their calls ASAP.

That's the communication and message Condon is sending. And Phil is getting it. Often times what's "not said" sends a much louder message than the things that are.

I know that for a fact.

But HOW does he know that they aren't willing to negotiate if he doesn't TALK to them? We don't know what the messages left actually said. Perhaps it's Phil saying (examples) "call me, we need to talk about Brady and the escalators in his contract" or he could just be saying "hey, we're trying to work on something new with this contract, call me"

I doubt we, the fan, will EVER know.

And let me pose one further thing here Babe.

Do you think Condon became a successfull sports agent by being "unprofessional"? Do you think he acquired his status and clientel by "not looking out for their best interest"? Do you think he just "ignores" what the people he's negotiating with" have to say?

I'm not saying "who's right or wrong" in these negotiations. I'm not trying to place blame either way. But we have two "very shrude,capable people" in both Phil and Condon here. Neither are dumb,rude or unprofessional IMO

So that's why I'm not just buying this at face value that Phil is "Doing everything right and Condon is just a rude dumb ass"


There's far more to the story here. Because Phil didn't get to be where he's at by "giving away the farm". And Condon didn't get to where he's at by "Not getting good deals for his clients".

So this is nothing more than a chess match and posturing. I don't plan to permit "what gets publicized" to permit me to lose sight of those facts and that both partys doing the negotiating are very capable and good at what they do.

JMHO

All that may very well be true. However, Condon making NO response (whether to the Browns directly, or through the media), he gives his client a bad public image (just look at some of the responses here on this board). That is NOT in his client's best interest.

As was said earlier, how can anything change, on any type of sticking point, if no one talks? Avoiding the issue (not returning calls) gains you nothing. In fact, it could lose you something. Frankly, someone I'm working with ignores me (ticking me off), I'm LESS likely to give them any type of considerations on future requests.