DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Let the QB battle begin!!!

Quote:

---

I'm now confused. Which isn't a rare thing, but the Rats/Broncos defensive meltdowns occurred in the space of four days.

---

Quote:

---

Rutigliano said a Quinn versus Anderson preseason battle would be destructive. He is convinced Quinn will be a better quarterback than Anderson.

Quote:

---

I think it'll be good for one guy to push the other, create some pressure, and let the best man win. Of course since Sam is "CONVINCED" Quinn is a better QB, he's clearly close-minded, so it only stands to reason that it would be a "DISASTER" if his boy isn't named the QB.

---

---

Quote:

---

Sam ain't worried about his boy. Sam is concerned that we'll blow training camp playing musical chairs at the QB position instead of allowing one to settle in so he can be better prepared for the start of the season.

---

Again.

We've seen this movie before.....

Quote:

---

I'd like to see the QB named early, leaving no doubt or concern to the organization, coaches, and players about who is the leader is. That can build a bond as they know their identity well before the regular season.

---

There's one key issue here that I think everyone is forgetting. Even you, Dub

During all the previous QB battles, we had an established regime who'd seen these guys before, and up close and in person.

Think about it for a moment.........

Let's be COMPLETELY honest with ourselves here in fantasy land, just for one fleeting minute, hehehe. I know during my time when I got to see players in person that there was no substitute for that. I watched film and watched games, but many of my opinions changed once I saw a guy with my own eyes.

Mangini doesn't have the benefit of that. All he has is 16 games in 2008 of a pathetic offensive unit which didn't help either QB show anything. From there, he only has 2007 tape of Anderson. Then he's got 2006 tape of Quinn.........in college

You know where I'm going with this. I think it'd be a very foolish idea for a coach to come in during his first year and name a starter without thorough evaluations. Those evaluations can't be fully completed until each QB gets some work in a preseason game or two. Unfortunately, that means it wouldn't be wise to name a starter until the 3rd preseason game.

In all actuality, if you give a QB the UNDISPUTED reigns of the team with two FULL preseason games to work with before the season starts, that's more than enough time for everyone to get behind that QB.

Now, it's time to be honest with ourselves again. Do you honestly think that if Anderson was named the undisputed starter before preseason even starts that all the distractions would go away? All we'd get is talk about Quinn wanting out, how the Homer-boy should have gotten the job, etc etc etc.

The distractions will be there from the media as long as Quinn is NOT named the starter. As long as there's two games to go in preseason when we name a starter, we're in fine shape. That's plenty of time for the players to get behind one guy.

Furthermore, if all this is a ruse to drive up one guys trade value, then I think it's a very bad idea to go this route, primarily because of exactly what you've stated regarding unity. While I think it'd be an unwise move to name a starter without a thorough evalution, I think draggin' this thing out in the hopes of driving up a little trade value is a gamble we shouldn't be making.

Quote:

---

He IS serious...

Just don't forget, this is the same guy who wanted to hire a "real corporate CEO" to oversee football operations.

Apparently we can use straight-line depreciation to determine a player's value.

---

Quote:

---

Again you clearly have "ZERO" Understanding of a CEO's role or what a CEO even does for that matter. The Browns will continually struggle until we hire a suit capable of running this organization. period! this is FACT

---

Quote:

---

It takes more than football to run an organization.....the hiring of Mangini tells me Randy Lerner doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing.

---

Quote:

---

1. Toad...do you realize that they also tape practices and those films are available to Mangini as well.

---

What?! REALLY?!?! Are you SURE?!?!

WOW!!!

Quote:

---

Just exactly what "LIVE" viewing of practices will give Mangini a better perspective of the mechanics of both QBs. The only intangible is Leadership, work habits, sponging from what is taught and bringing it on the field.

these are all areas that from everything I have read Quinn has a tremendous advantage over DA.

---

And that's the entire problem right there. Or perhaps I shouldn't say "problem" as much as I should say that's an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about.

You can read reports until your blue in the face, but until you see something for yourself, you're making a mistake by acting on something based on reports and film without viewing it in person.

Maybe Quinn is better at those things, but if Mangini has based his opinion solely on reports and LIMITED game film and controlled practices, he hasn't done his homework and stands a much greater risk of failure.

Quote:

---

3. RAC...Mangini has gone on record that they meet frequently and has said that he's been very helpful in the evaluations of players. I wonder how much the guy who Named Quinn as the starter for 09 has influenced Mangini?

---

Which should scare the Hell out of you, me, and anyone else, because RAC failed in terms of handling players.

Mangini SHOULD reach out to RAC for info, but that's still second-hand info from a former head coach who was a failure.

Listen, you can make all the points you like. They will probably all have some level of validity. However, there's nothing about Quinn that has made the NFL go "WOW! This kid has got it! We just know it!" He clearly didn't wow RAC enough to earn the job from Anderson (I mean if you're going to use RAC as a standard, then I can do it as well, right? ) and Quinn hasn't done anything to make Mangini go ahead and hand the team to him.

That's a point I've made before. The big QB jobs that could have netted us a nice pick for one of our QB's are gone. There's not much reason to continue to play charades when naming Quinn the QB right now would stop all the speculation and unite the team. But that hasn't happened.

So......While I'm glad that people believe in Quinn, since it means there's something to him that may be legitimate, just handing him the job doesn't make any sense, not when Anderson is still just a young QB in terms of development.

Regarding the backlash if he's named the starter.........Mangini doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'll let that bother him As long as Anderson performs well, he'll be fine. If he doesn't, well, that's what Quinn is here for.

I've said it before and I'll repeat myself again: If Anderson really isn't good enough, he'll show it. If Quinn is good enough, he'll show it. At this point in their respective careers, each guy MUST be ready to take the reigns and have a good year. It's that time in their development. So, to me, if Anderson were to win the job, it'll be because he's actually and honestly outperformed Quinn. If Quinn wins the job, same thing, he'll have earned it. The fans won't care as long as he does well. If he doesn't do well and loses the job, so be it.

I say there's no way in Hell we take one of the top QB's in this draft. We could take.....Hell.......SHOULD.........take a late-round guy as a developmental player. But taking one of the legit prospects would be a horrific idea. We need help everywhere else. Taking a QB when we have two decent options on the roster allready would be a sign that Mangini and Kok are absolute bonifide idiots.

Quote:

---

There's one key issue here that I think everyone is forgetting. Even you, Dub

...I think it'd be a very foolish idea for a coach to come in during his first year and name a starter without thorough evaluations. Those evaluations can't be fully completed until each QB gets some work in a preseason game or two. Unfortunately, that means it wouldn't be wise to name a starter until the 3rd preseason game.

---

I have thought of that issue but refrained from stating my opinion in my post. You see, I feel that there is plenty of film on DA for evaluation. Agreed, it's not the same as seeing the guy up close live. But I feel a few things stick out about DA on film that can help EM come to a decision on him.

The rest of the offensive players notwithstanding, DA, on his own, has shown that he lacks severely in the short game. His accuracy in that range is a detriment to a "move the chains" type offense that I believe EM will be running.

In the Favre thread eotab mentions that Favre flourished in that type of offfense in NY. I really think that is type of offense that we will be running here. (With EM having run that offense in NY is one reason I think we'll be running a version of it here). For the first time in Favre's career he primarily used the short game and moved the chains. DA has not shown that he can make those decisions or those throws with any consistancy. DA just does not fit that kind of offense. In addition, he is not what one would consider a mobile QB by any stretch. Those two counts against him make him a bad fit. Case closed. No real need to see any more of him.

On the other hand, Quinn has shown very good accurcy in that same short game. In his starts the Browns kept him primarily in the short game. I have seen him hit his receivers in stride in a way that DA rarely, if ever, does. I was very impressed with that. He is also an athlete thus being mobile. And last but not least Quinn has, I believe, the mental makeup necessary to make good decisions.

A lot of that stood out to me in the Denver game. Granted, Denver had a horrible defense. But they are still an NFL defense. Much better than those Quinn faced in college. In his first start ever, on only three days notice, he did a great job. Not just an ok job, but a great job as a rookie on short notice.

Granted, it was probably a match made in heaven to face that defense in his first start, but he didn't just do ok, he did very, very well. I know you are of the opinion that since that game was lost that the decision to start him then was proved wrong. But it was not Quinn who lost that game in his own struggles. He orchestrated some very nice drives and IIRC came from behind twice to take the lead. Now me personally, I can hardly blame him for not getting the win considering how Cutler made mincemeat of our DB's late in the game.



In the end, one guy doesn't fit. That eliminates him IMO. The other guy is one who possesses all the necessary tools and the mental makeup to succeed. Will he? I don't know. But watching film on both, (Quinn's mostly from ND), should give EM & Co. enough information to make an accurate assesment on DA and thus name BQ the starter and live with it. Ther would certainly be growning pains but at least there would be growth IMO. With DA I feel that from him you'll get what you've always got.

As the article mentions, DA had a half of a good season then ended it badly. He continued to play badly for the first half of the next season. (Though I'll give it to him that his injury, and those of others on offense, in the preseason may have set him up to start bad). Still, I think he has shown that of the two, Quinn would have the skill set and mental makeup to run an offense of the sort I believe we'll be utilizing whereas DA simply does not. For DA, that should show up on film well enough.

That should make the decision easy and allow the team to move on and put the QB "controversy" at a close for the first time in many years. Somewhere along the line that chain has to be, must be broken. Breaking that chain of controversy and inconsistancy by naming Quinn the starter is not the worst thing this regime could do. It's not like they'd be dumping Bernie for Todd Philcox.

Now I realize that Quinn has no place in EM's heart since he was not the one who drafted him. But EM could do a heck of a lot worse than naming him the starter.


Going into the 2008 season the Browns did exactly what Sam is proposing. They named DA the starter early and it was his job until BQ started vs. the Donks. It didn't work out as hoped due to so darn many injuries in the preseason, but I understood the thinking. It gave consistancy and continuity to the most important position on the team. I still believe that is the right way to plan this only this time give it to the other guy, the young first round pick who has been sitting for a couple of years studing and waiting. You do that because the other guys just doesn't fit the offensive philosophy.

Now just because one guy doesn't fit doesn't automatically make the other guy the best choice. But I believe the skill sets do. You got one guy who doesn't possess the skill set required; you have another guy who does. Let's stop screwing around and get this over with.

Besides, if DA couldn't beat Charlie Frye out in camp. He certainly isn't going to beat Brady Quinn. Why go through the bother?

Just do it!

Quote:

---

Many people around here believe absolutely in Quinn.

---

Quote:

---

Many people around here believe absolutely in Quinn. I don't see it. I see plenty of question marks along with the good things. He's going to have to prove it in order to validate all the belief.

---

Quote:

---

The conspiracy theorists would believe that this is about trading Anderson. The media in Cleveland even backs up that claim. Of course the media backed up the claim that Rogers' problems were about money too

---

The media in Cleveland is worse than we are. It's a shame too because it feeds a fire that shouldn't be burning, as in the Rogers/money situation.

That said I feel one of them has to go... if only for me.

I'm sick and tired of having two QB's on the roster, either of which could be the starter, and all the controversy that surrounds that. I'm sick of being the team who doesn't know who their QB is. That is actually an embarassment to me and has proved out to be a huge detriment to the team.

I'd like to solve that once and for all and get down to brass tacks.

[rant]
My message is this: Do something, even if it's wrong! Get off this uncertainty. If we go the "competition" angle again this year and end up with both QB's still on the roster we'll have been riding this horse for 5 years in a row starting in '05. As long as they're both on the roster it will continue. Even if Quinn starts (but doesn't set the world on fire right away), but DA is still here, if Quinn gets hurt DA plays. If he does even marginally well we'll go into 2010 with another competition. Arrrrrrgh!

I'd rather pick one, get rid of the other and have a backup that no one will be clamoring for. We've changed starting QB's so many times it's rediculous. Pick one and move on. If they do it with their eyes closed it will be better than keeping up this "we have to make the right decision" mentality. We're heading into our third year of trying to make the "right decision". If the staff sees them as so close in talent and skill set then how wrong can they be if they pull a name out of hat? (Or flip a coin )
[/rant]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The conspiracy theorists would believe that this is about trading Anderson. The media in Cleveland even backs up that claim. Of course the media backed up the claim that Rogers' problems were about money too

---

The media in Cleveland is worse than we are. It's a shame too because it feeds a fire that shouldn't be burning, as in the Rogers/money situation.

That said I feel one of them has to go... if only for me.

---

I agree one of them has to go, I choose the media! They must not be allowed to stay in Cleveland! Trade them to Buffalo and let them write for their team.

Quote:

---

Many people around here believe absolutely in Quinn. I don't see it. I see plenty of question marks along with the good things. He's going to have to prove it in order to validate all the belief.

---

definitely there with you on this one, toad. here's what i see.

quinn: questions on arm strength and accuracy (his short range accuracy is better than DA but it's not a given that it's a strength), but most people think his intangibles are great. let's even go as far as to say his intangibles are given, which is a huge stretch, simply because it hasn't been proven yet.

DA: questions on short range accuracy, ability to develop a complete game, and if pressed, you can say intelligence, not that it was proven that one of them is smarter than the other. arm strength, success given a system, and leadership are provens. yes leadership, people rallied around him and heavily lobbied for him when benched. he was a captain afterall and it's not just a given just because they're the qb

here's how i see it then. if you have any other player where their mental ability (assumed as a given) was their strongest point but the most important physical aspects of their game are question marks, how does this warrant "wanting to see what they have"?? just like RAC said in a presser once, you don't hear anyone who wanted jason wright started over jamal lewis right. you're not going to take someone like a jason wright who was supposed to be VERY smart and had good vision but merely had AVERAGE running ability and say he should start over someone like a jamal lewis, or even a jerome harrison for that fact. that's just how it is yet once it comes to qb, logic takes a backseat. blows my mind.

if DA/quinn is traded during the draft, great. if not, i certainly welcome the qb competition because i'm ready to see these question marks be answered. posters like toad and i do not have personal stakes in which qb succeeds so i know i'm not insecure enough to worry that it's possible that "my boy" wouldn't win a qb competition. otherwise, i'd be complaining too about my boy not getting a fair shot and that i simply want to see what i have in him because i definitely don't think the other guy should be the starter.

Quote:

---

My message is this: Do something, even if it's wrong!

---

I've the feeling that once you read it again, you'll ask yourself why you typed it, hehe.

It's interesting to see that similiar sentiment from others. We've gone the route of having just one starter (Couch) which didn't work, then went with two QB's (couch holcomb) which didn't work, then we went with defined roles (Dilfer the starter, Frye the benchwarmer but also the future) that didn't work, then we went with just one starter (Frye) then we went with one pure backup and one future starter (Anderson and Quinn) then we went with Anderson, and now we're back to two QB's

I know we aren't going to agree on this QB thing. I know I'm taking the unpopular and some may say illogical stance. But I would have to urge you to consider the ramifications of doing something "just do keep from doing THIS."

How would you feel if we dumped Quinn tomorrow and had Anderson as the unconditional starter?

Michelle:
I think there's more here who feel that in Quinn than you might believe

Quote:

---

It's interesting to see that similiar sentiment from others. We've gone the route of having just one starter (Couch) which didn't work, then went with two QB's (couch holcomb) which didn't work, then we went with defined roles (Dilfer the starter, Frye the benchwarmer but also the future) that didn't work, then we went with just one starter (Frye) then we went with one pure backup and one future starter (Anderson and Quinn) then we went with Anderson, and now we're back to two QB's

---

is right!

If anything is spelled out by this walk down memory lane it's, "get over the qb thing, it's not taking us to the playoffs!" 1 out of 10 years we've made the playoff's since our rebirth is not the record we're after.

What we do know is that both our qb's are serviceable and I could really care less which one is out there. Pick the one that runs the new offense the best (whatever that turns out to be), early in TC and be done with the drama queen antics of a qb competition.

Then build a freakin' D that won't give away games or force us into shootout's and we'll be on the way. Drafting a receiver in the first round, regardless of what happens with BE, borders on insanity. This year needs to be about the defense!

Quote:

---

Why is it that nearly every time someone says something like "We've seen what Anderson can do, and he clearly is NOT the answer / he sucks / he had his chance and proved he's a back-up or third stringer at best, etc. etc." -How come those types statements never include some very important information like "Edwards dropping the ball 8 million times really contributed to DA's low percentage, low completions, low rating, etc." or.... "Steptoe cant catch either" or.... "Our running game was stuffed in a lot of the games we played" or... "The O-line couldn't hold back a bag of feathers" or... "We have a heck of a lot of key players injured and not able to contribute" or... "The defense often put us in a position of playing from behind which meant a lot of added pressure" or.... "Chud decided to keep calling running plays late in the 4th qtr. when we were down by 2/3 scores".

---

Quote:

---

1. Let's suppose for a moment that new Denver coach Josh McDaniels really does have an interest in trading for Brady Quinn -- or at least he did at one time. Yes, he may have been trying to steal Shaun Rogers in a package that included Quinn with Jay Cutler and a third team involved. But the point was McDaniels asked for Quinn, not Derek Anderson.

2. When it came time to pick between Quinn and Anderson, the former QB coach and erstwhile offensive coordinator for Bill Belichick in New England favored Quinn.

3. Yes, the son of famed Ohio high school coach Thom McDaniels could be wrong. Yes, the former John Carroll quarterback could be perhaps overly influenced by Charlie Weis, the former New England offensive coordinator and current Notre Dame coach who insists Quinn will be an impact NFL quarterback. But the fact is when McDaniels was hired by Denver, he had an uneasy feeling about Cutler. First, he tired to trade for Matt Cassel, who went to Denver. Then, he checked out Quinn.

4. That's why I think the Browns favor Quinn, no matter what they say in public.

---

Quote:

---

5. I also understand why the Browns are talking about having an open competition for QB; why they seem to even be excited by the idea. If you are the Browns and are considering trading a quarterback, you want the opposite message out. You want to act like you have two starters, to keep up the trade value.

---

Quote:

---

Unless someone gives me an ungodly trade for either DA or BQ I see no compelling reason to get rid of either one. Injuries and such hapopen. I sorta remember who we had playing against the bungles in December.. some Toledo guy..

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Unless someone gives me an ungodly trade for either DA or BQ I see no compelling reason to get rid of either one. Injuries and such hapopen. I sorta remember who we had playing against the bungles in December.. some Toledo guy..

---

#2's can be had...

Ready???

Sign Boller...He's better than Anderson...lol...

---

Lay off the scotch

I'm better than Boller *L*