DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum McCoy Needs 32 Games (Article)

By Steve Doerschuk
CantonRep.com staff writer
Posted Jun 11, 2011 @ 11:27 PM

We were talking quarterbacks with Mike Holmgren one day when the president laid out the blueprint Browns fans should expect to apply to the greenhorn.

The conversation wasn’t about Colt McCoy, but it had everything to do with the prism through which the boss sees the kid.

Baby-faced McCoy acts like The Man, as much as any recent Cleveland quarterback has.

He was among the first NFL players to call teammates together for practice during the lockout.

He got eight starts under his Stetson in 2010, and has been handed the keys to 2011.

Is this enough to inspire hope he will play like a thoroughbred in his second Browns season?

No.

At least, Holmgren made that fairly clear in what he told us about young quarterbacks:

“If the guy gets a chance to play — not sit on the bench and watch, but play — with the same coach in the same system, it takes two years before he even looks like he can play.

“Now, by the end of the two years, you know, I know, I’ve always known ... you know if he’s your guy.

“That’s two years ... 32 games. So, if I’m sticking to my beliefs — which I really do believe that’s the formula for the offense I was in — you go through the bumps in the road.”

We take two things from this.

Eight starts plus 16 starts — less if the labor stink swallows a few games or more — does not add up to 32 games. McCoy is on his second head coach in a system that is like Eric Mangini’s the way Lady GaGa is like John Tesh.

What happens if McCoy’s struggles are severe enough to make some coaches and players clamor for backup Seneca Wallace?

Consider how Holmgren handled 1993, when Brett Favre was in his second year as the Packers’ starter. Mark Brunell was a rookie who had made some believers.

“A fair amount of people wanted Mark to play,” Holmgren said. “Favre was the wild, crazy person. Mark was the perfect kid, like the straight A student sitting in the corner at school.

“Brett had just thrown an interception from his knees, or some screwy thing. My coaches ... I can remember the meeting ... some wanted to ... ‘Hey, we can’t keep doing this.’

“I said, ‘OK, let’s go around the room and vote.’ Everyone vote. Which one?’

“This was during the season. I forget the vote totals, but there was a lot of sentiment to go the other way. And so I said, ‘I’ve got to sleep on this one.’ ”

It’s different now. Holmgren isn’t the head coach. His backup is a veteran Wallace. What has changed is Holmgren’s status. He isn’t a knew head coach. He’s one of the top quarterback experts in the league.

The Browns would be stupid not to rely on Holmgren as their most important voice on passing matters.

THE FATHER FIGURE

A day after the 1993 Favre vs. Brunell vote, Holmgren invited Favre into the principal’s office.

“That,” Holmgren said, “is when I told him, ‘We’re gonna go to the top of the mountain together, or we’re going to be in the dumpster together. You and me. However this slices. So, we’re joined. This is it.’

“I think it made things better for him to know that. And then at the culmination of that year, we finally got in the playoffs, and he played better, but he was still too wild with his throws.”

Favre threw a league-worst 27 interceptions, including two in a playoff loss at Dallas.

“I told Brett, ‘How are we going to improve this thing?’ ” Holmgren recalled. “ ‘You’re throwing way too many interceptions, blah blah blah.’ And he said, ‘Mike, that’s how I play. That’s me.’

“And I said, ‘Let me tell you something. Do you want to be 9-7 your whole life?’ He said, ‘Of course not.’

“And then I said, ‘Look, I know this is you, and one of the strengths of being you is that. But one of the weaknesses is also that. So how are we going to do this? I’m not playing. You’re playing. I can help you, but you have to let me help you.’

“And he bought in.”

Even if McCoy buys in, is he big enough? That remains to be seen, but it should be noted that former Holmgren quarterbacks Joe Montana, Steve Young and Favre all were listed at 6-foot-2, an inch taller than McCoy. Brunell is McCoy’s height, 6-1.

Bigger questions: Is he anywhere close to as talented as Holmgren’s past quarterbacks? Does he have “it?”

‘ALL IN’ BEHIND McCOY?

Holmgren says he always knows after two full years of starting. Our guess is that means McCoy gets a mulligan if his first full year as a starter goes only so-so.

More of the Holmgren mantra:

“It’s all in. The coaches ... everyone gets in behind the guy, and you make him good. You make him a player. The player commits and studies and prepares in the offseason. He has to hold up his end of the bargain. And it works.”

What if the kid’s parts quit working? What if he has to sit because of injuries?

Holmgren went through this in Seattle. Hasselbeck was 25 — McCoy’s age now — when Holmgren traded for him in 1991. He brought in Trent Dilfer, then 29, as a free agent.

Hasselbeck equates to McCoy, Dilfer to Wallace.

“I signed Trent to be the No. 2, and he knew that,” Holmgren said. “He said, ‘I’m a competitive guy,’ and I said, ‘I know you are.’ You come in here ... but he’s No. 1. Don’t get goofed up with that.

“So we start the season and what happened is what I knew would happen. Matt had his growing pains. But we stick with the plan. Then Matt gets hurt.

“Trent comes in, wins a couple games, looks pretty good. Matt comes back, gets hurt again. Trent finished the season winning a couple games.

“So, the next year Trent was No. 1 going into training camp. That threw Matt for a loop. I tell Matt, ‘This is the deal. You keep getting better. You were hurt. He did fine. He earned this.’

“My opinion of Matt Hasselbeck didn’t change. That’s important to know. OK, now Trent blows out his knee in our first preseason game. Now I’ve got to go back to Matt. Now he was goofed up.

“He wasn’t mature enough then to handle it the way we would like him to. Trent came back after he was healthy but he was never No. 1 again. That bothered him, but that was the way it was. That was the agreement.

“At the end of that season, Matt finished strong. Finally, the light when on. And after that, he just went ... boom.

Quote:

---

“If the guy gets a chance to play — not sit on the bench and watch, but play — with the same coach in the same system, it takes two years before he even looks like he can play.

---

Same Coach...Same System???...Allrighty then...The clock starts game 1 this year then with Shurmer...

IF...IF...IF we end up stinkin' up the NFL with this new system transition across the board...And end up with the #1 pick in 2012...Where would Heckert go with that 1st pick???

McCoy has 2 things against him...

1) Size at 6'1"
2) AVG at best arm strength

Regardless if anyone wants to admit it...Those 2 things WILL limit what we can do with him...There's been other successful QB's with those same limitations but they are few and far between...

Regardless of what McCoy looks like this year there is NO WAY we can pass on the next Peyton Manning...That would be Mr. Luck of Stanford...

If we do stink up the league in year one...Mr. McCoy will never see 32 games in Cleveland...Not as a starter...And if he plays extremely well...We will then be in a Philly position with Kolb...Even with McCoy relegated to a #2 here...We hold him ransom until we get that 1st Rounder offer...Whether it be 2012 or 2013...

A great O-line nullifies those two things, and we have a pretty good O-line... with the potential of getting better.. Lavaou and Pinkston have to step it up. And speaking of next year, I highly doubt we end up picking #1 with our schedule. Anything is possible, but we are gonna get atleast 5 or 6 wins.. With those few wins, the number 1 (for Luck) should be out the picture. Build around the QB, preferably o-line, or WR...

The thing for me is this.. How does Shurmur feel about this 32 game go through thick and thin marriage of a QB?

Quote:

---

How does Shurmur feel

---

I get the feeling our entire Coaching staff will be walking hand in hand with however Holmgren feels. At least on the offensive side of things.

I dunno if I agree with you, rage, although I understand why you might feel that way. But, when Mangini got the boot, he said Holmgren kept his promise and let him coach his way....

I think MH got "his" coach who mirrors his own philosophies, and now will sit back and let Shurmur do his job with little interference from the FO.

Quote:

---

“If the guy gets a chance to play — not sit on the bench and watch, but play — with the same coach in the same system, it takes two years before he even looks like he can play.

---

The gospel according to Holmgren, because no rookie QBs have ever looked like they can play in their first or second years. Does he really think he knows what he's talking about, or is it simply preemptive ass covering?

So if Holmgren had Quinn as a qb he would have let him play for 2 years?
I think you know when a qb doesnt have it. But it takes 2 years to see if he has it.

Quote:

---

“If the guy gets a chance to play — not sit on the bench and watch, but play — with the same coach in the same system, it takes two years before he even looks like he can play.

---

This is a fallacious argument especially in light of the recent success of rookie and second year QBs like Worthlessburger, Flacco, Sanchez, Bradford, Manning, and the success of others who sat like Brees, Rivers & Palmer who sat and watched before playing and had relative success within their first 32 games. Perhaps if he had qualified the statement by saying his thinking applies to later round picks or something it might have some merit, but as a blanket philosophical statement, it's pure hyperbolic B.S.

Excerpted from the FoxSports article by Adam Caplan.

IS McCOY THE ANSWER IN CLEVELAND?

Question: Big Browns fan here. Will Colt McCoy lead us to the playoffs? -- Fran L.

Answer: Fran, when the Browns selected McCoy, I wrote that they'd have to transition to a West Coast offensive scheme if he was going to have a chance to be their long-term answer at quarterback, and that’s the scheme they’ll be transitioning to this season.

For being thrown in there probably before he was truly ready to play, I thought McCoy did a nice job last season. It'll be interesting to see how he progresses, but I think late last season his lack of ideal arm strength got exposed. That’s something that actually can be improved upon over time (see Drew Brees and Tom Brady for example), but it’s not easy to do.

To help get the team and McCoy to the next level, they need to keep building around him. The addition of wide receiver Greg Little should help over time, but keep in mind he’s a bit raw as a prospect. Little has a tremendous upside, but he'll also need time to develop his skills. They also need to add more depth at wide receiver.

And a strong running game would help McCoy. While FB Peyton Hillis wound up being one of the biggest surprises in the NFL last season as a runner, they drafted Montario Hardesty in '10 to be the starting running back. It remains to be seen if Hardesty, who missed the entire season due to a torn ACL, can become the main ball carrier this season.

But the biggest issues to solve are on the defensive side of the ball. I really like the addition of first-round pick Phil Taylor, but the Browns really don’t have many impact players on defense. General manager Tom Heckert, who has a sharp eye for talent, has to continue to add more talent on defense if the Browns are to become a playoff team in the near future.

Quote:

---

This is a fallacious argument especially in light of the recent success of rookie and second year QBs like Worthlessburger, Flacco, Sanchez, Bradford, Manning, and the success of others who sat like Brees, Rivers & Palmer who sat and watched before playing and had relative success within their first 32 games. Perhaps if he had qualified the statement by saying his thinking applies to later round picks or something it might have some merit, but as a blanket philosophical statement, it's pure hyperbolic B.S.

---

I don't believe that's a correct assumption on your part.

I think Mike Holmgren believes and trust in his blueprint for QB's or his system for success.
If a QB happens to show early success all the better, but I don't think if the reverse is true, then he is willing to give up on his first instincts or be leaf in a player based on a learning curve that is different from player to player.

The man knows what he is looking for in a QB to begin with so I think that his bets are already hedged

Irregardless of the situations those QBs were in, they, and others, have shown success and the ability to play well within one or two years. Point being, this statement:

Quote:

---

“If the guy gets a chance to play — not sit on the bench and watch, but play — with the same coach in the same system, it takes two years before he even looks like he can play.

---

is hyperbole, and not at all accurate. It's even nonsense to put a statement like that out there in light of all the evidence to the contrary, unless he's doubtful that his particular QB, (Colt,) will look like he can play in under two years. As a general statement the statement is false, as a hedge against poor play from Colt for the next two years, it may have some merit, but it's important to understand the difference.

There is more than one right way to do something...

Holmgren has a history of sticking with the QB's he believes in... Favre, Hasselbach, even Wallace... and I think that is what he wants people to understand about him and his belief. He doesn't do one and dones. You will get a true shot to succeed.

Right, exactly. Perhaps, If he had made a different statement, then possibly that one wouldn't have been inaccurate or untrue. I'm not sure what you "figure he meant" or whether that's even relevant, but what I figure he meant is, it may take up to two years for Colt to look like a true starter. That the two year rule doesn't apply to every QB isn't the point, that, in his view, it applies to ours is.