DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Is It Too Soon to Give Up on McCoy?..PART TWO...

Serious question, last week a guy named Nick called into the Colin Cowherd show and called Colt McCoy a top 10 QB in the NFL. Was that you?

I still contend - very strongly - that a large part of our problems is that we are running a mega-vanilla West Coast 101 offense.

We aren't fancy at all. We pretty much line up and run the most basic plays - and my guess is that we're simply still trying to get the guys educated. Things like sight adjustments for routes, etc...


I'm probably wrong, but this is pretty much my belief of our problems. I think that the majority of them are getting it now - and that would coincide with us looking a bit better and better the last few weeks, but I think that there are still some growing pains to go through.


IF I am correct, then I think that we can expect a significant improvement in performance from this offense next year. Not "all world" significant, but enough that the idiocy that we saw earlier this year should be a thing of the past because there should be a level of proficiency here that we should be able to add complexity, which will lead to greater chances of success.

with the seahawks saying earlier this season that they were calling our plays and how easy our screen were to defend in the cards game, i wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be the case.

why was our first drive so effective with terrific blocking yesterday and then the rest of the game was just crap?

Probably because of what someone alluded to earlier.... Wallace is MUCH more proficient in this offense, so they were probably on their heels a little waiting to see what we did.
Ok, probably not "waiting", but there's no film of him with our current players in this offense, so there wasn't a whole lot to scout for them, and they didn't know how much or how little we'd open things up.

We got lucky with a couple of back-to-back big plays and capitalized... then they saw things for what they are and shut us down.

Quote:

---

Probably because of what someone alluded to earlier.... Wallace is MUCH more proficient in this offense, so they were probably on their heels a little waiting to see what we did.

---

Then why in the previous week did Colt do the exact same thing to the Steelers? Went 79 yards in 10 plays, big chunks of yards.. only difference is we failed to punch it in....

Statistically speaking this game was exactly like the Steelers game with 3 exceptions..

1. Hillis punched it in from the 1 this week and did not last week.
2. Wallace made one broken play that went for 70+ yards and a TD and none of McCoy's broken plays got the break needed to go the distance.
3. McCoy threw 2 INTs and Wallace didn't throw any.

Other than that, we had more first downs against the Steelers, we had a better 3rd down percentage against the Steelers, we had 30 fewer total yards against the Steelers but we had 22 fewer rushing yards, the passing yards were almost identical even with the 70 yard TD, better TOP against the Steelers...

as long as we are pairing the Steeler game to this one, let's fix the example a tad

Quote:

---

2. Wallace made one broken play that went for 70+ yards and a TD and MoMass misjudged and dropped a sure TD on a broken play last week from McCoy

---

there are also more subtle differences, like if wallace throws the shallow post to Moore v the steelers he catches it in stride and runs a long time instead of leaping then stumbling until he falls down.

Not only that play....the Norwood sideline pass vs CIN, the Hillis long pass and the Cribbs pass vs PIT are 3 perfect examples....should have been TDs if simply placed more accurately

Wallace hit Little in stride and that allowed him to barely escape for a TD

Perfect example of what difference QB accuracy makes

yeah i agree with all of those examples.

Quote:

---

there are also more subtle differences, like if wallace throws the shallow post to Moore v the steelers he catches it in stride and runs a long time instead of leaping then stumbling until he falls down.

---

First of all, he didn't fall down. He got tackles after regaining his balance and picking up almost 15 yards after the catch.. second of all, you can guarantee that Wallace would have thrown that ball 6 inches lower?

Quote:

---

why was our first drive so effective with terrific blocking yesterday and then the rest of the game was just crap?

---

As the game wore on, and the defense started taking more chances with the blitzes, they learned that far more often than not that we didn't have an answer for the blitz. Sure, Wallace made a helluva play on the TD, but outside of that, our offensive line couldn't stop it.

When they went vanilla, Wallace was on time and in stride. When they just blitzed the Hell out of us and we couldn't stop it, Wallace did what every other QB in the NFL would do: Nothing.

and if we have Steiny and one other Guard... life woulda been kinda good.

He's one of the best pulling guards in the league... big and athletic.... that's a Godsend at Left Guard for the WCO.

And it's a world of talent and experience better than what we currently have between Thomas & Mack.

Bud Shaw's take ........

Browns need to upgrade talent at skill positions, starting at quarterback, Bud Shaw writes | cleveland.com
http://www.cleveland.com/budshaw/index.ssf/2011/12/post_40.html

Arguing Colt McCoy vs. Seneca Wallace for starting quarterback feels like a debate about how to get out from under a mortgage gone bad: short sale or foreclosure.

Take your pick.

Wallace is a career backup. McCoy's calling, at best, appears to be a starter on a win-some-lose-some kind of team.

Wallace's first start of 2011 Sunday was another occasion where the big-time playmakers wore the other team's colors. McCoy knows that scene well. But every quarterback in the league would benefit if surrounded by playmakers, so can we stop with that campaign propaganda?

Franchise quarterbacks don't get a Fort Knox offensive line on every snap. They don't always have A.J. Green or Larry Fitzgerald at their disposal. (See Ben Roethlisberger.) They only make it seem that way.

Teams win Super Bowls far more often than not because their best playmaker is behind center.

So there's only one compelling discussion a day after the Browns clinched yet another double-digit loss season. Who should play quarterback in the final two games isn't it. What's the difference?

The need to do something bold at QB in 2012 is the conversation starter (and closer).

Pat Shurmur didn't commit Monday to a healthy McCoy for Christmas Eve in Baltimore. He didn't announce Wallace either.

This was a season dedicated to finding out about McCoy from the start. The likelihood he will turn heads in the last two weeks is not great.

You could make the case it's also beside the point, that McCoy deserves to finish up a season in which he has shown an admirable toughness week after week. That you don't lose your starting job through injury, unless Tom Brady just replaced you and your team is on a Vegas-style winning streak.

"If he comes back healthy, he should finish the season," said one Browns player after the game.

That player?

Wallace.

Whatever, next season is all that matters now. At the very least, the Browns need to throw the job open to training camp competition beyond McCoy and Wallace, even if that's not Mike Holmgren's preference.

They handed it to McCoy this season, apparently hoping he could be something other than an efficient game manager.

Heading into Arizona, you could hear the anticipation in some player's voices when Wallace was going to make his first start. That was less about Wallace and more about the offensive doldrums under McCoy.

The Browns have seen enough to know McCoy's shortcomings. They can reward him for hanging in there all season by giving him the final two starts. But they can't dedicate another season to find out if more weapons would improve his performance exponentially.

They have two No. 1 draft picks and will be picking in advantageous spots in the other rounds.

Quarterback is supposedly what this organization knows best, right?
If Robert Griffin III or Matt Barkley project as a franchise quarterback -- Andrew Luck won't get past Indianapolis -- take the plunge.

Would it constitute "starting over?" Two years into Mike Holmgren's tenure, the Browns are 9-21. They're not on the verge of contention anyway. How much could it possibly set them back?

Starting over? Do they feel that way in Cincinnati? How about Carolina? My guess is in Carolina they see the springboard potential in drafting a quarterback as gifted as Cam Newton.

Getting it right at quarterback trumps everything else. Not knowing if you've got it right -- or, worse, strongly suspecting that you haven't -- is a drag on an entire organization.

Sunday the Browns showed they are as capable of losing close games late with Wallace as with McCoy.

Wallace made a couple more throws you don't see McCoy routinely complete. There were fewer dropped passes for Wallace.

Overall, there was more to compare than contrast.

We had seen it all before.

Wallace and McCoy pretty much look like the same player. And while you could argue it's proof the system or the people around them are lacking, I'd argue that if if McCoy looks no better than a career backup it's time to find another quarterback.

thanks for the read I think that is where most of us are right now almost everyone I talked to this week before the game expected to see better play because we had a QB who although a career back up was a back up in THIS system.
We saw nothing not a single thing different. Same play calls same results. I would imagine with a shiny new QB we would see the same results and same play calls because well thats what has happened in every game.
The end result next year will be the same as well. 4 maybe 5 victorys and I dont think any QB will change that.

I think this all is a case of "Welcome to the world of instant gratification" "What have you done for me lately?" "If you dont get it right away you never will"

There is so much hypocrisy in this situation...

Lets look at Brady Quinn and Tim Couch and even Colt McCoy as early as last year...


Every single one of them we thought needed to sit and learn and learn and learn while they grew to understand the NFL coverages, speed, and offense.
Colt got put in too early against the Steelers, Saints, and Patriots and went 2-1...Suddenly his expectations went through the roof and this kid who was supposed to watch and learn now was "NFL ready" and in need to be upper echelon right away or else he is a bum...

Mind you he had no offeseason to learn the new offense. He had 2 new OLers to work with in the preseason and a rotation at RT after the preseason. He had a new WR that hadnt played in a year, a new coach and a new system to learn...But...since he looked good in 3 games, he was supposed to be ready.

What changed really? Late in the season he looked like a rookie. This year he looks better than a rookie, but still not elite...shocking. 2nd year QBs dont always make things amazing...Matt Ryan regressed, Matt Stafford regressed, Mark Sanchez, Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, and countless other QBs regressed in their 2nd year. That sophmore slump is real because teams get film on them and learn tendencies. The next move is for the QB to learn, adjust and improve...something the offense has somewhat done under Colt in the past few weeks. We have less 3 and outs, less negative pass plays, and are always in the game...

Look at every game we've played this year...how often do we really punt from our own 20 or farther...not that often...yes at times, but so does everyone else in the league. We often punt from our 40...which isnt elite, but its moving the ball.

We show flashes, and good QBs show flashes before they put it together. Look at Matt Schaub...he was never dominant, but hes grinded away, and grinded away and had those Texans looking great by doing his job, and improving (also Andre Johnson is a great help). Matt Ryan was ordinary for a while...although he showed moxie and had Michael Turner. Matt Stafford showed moxie and ability but it didnt show til this year (injury hurt him, but time helped him).
TJ Yates was good for 2 games...then had a bad game last week...is he awful then?


Quarterbacks improve...they improve with time. Even Joey Harrington improved with time, so did Tim Couch...any QB worth his salt improved. DA didnt, and thats why hes a 3rd stringer.

Success doesnt come from being a rocket armed guy with "measurables" otherwise JaMarcus, Gholston, and Maybin would be probowlers...guys that work to get better survive, and there are few guys in the league that work as hard as McCoy...

If he bombs next year we can move on...but for now...he needs time, and help.

However, there are things that a QB either does, or does not do, regardless of the offense he plays in. He is either effective as far as making NFL throws, arm strength, accuracy, footwork, pocket awareness, mobility, and other factors that are system non-specific.

If a QB does not have a decent base in these areas at this point in his career, especially with as much overall experience as a QB like McCoy has, then I wonder how much he ever can/will improve.

Quote:

---

thanks for the read I think that is where most of us are right now almost everyone I talked to this week before the game expected to see better play because we had a QB who although a career back up was a back up in THIS system.
We saw nothing not a single thing different.

---

Who is "we"?

I saw a career backup play better than our starter in all facets of the game. By much? Nope, but it was there. Considering he rides the bench and never gets first-team reps, he played a rather good game. There are opinions that Wallace turned in a performance which was better than that which McCoy typically offers. Maybe you didn't see it, to which you're entitled to your opinion, but many did, Shaw being one of them.

I don't know if I should be worried that the words of Bud freakin' Shaw reflected exactly what I said yesterday, but what I do know is that McCoy's time is almost up. He had his chance to show enough flashes to warrant more time, which goes back to something I'd said in the beginning of the season:

Because McCoy doesn't have any elite tools and wasn't a high draft pick, he isn't going to get the kind of time that many believe he deserves.

McCoy had a fair shot. He didn't have to win games. He just had to show some real promise.

Quote:

---

Sure, he can improve. Sure, adding a few players will make everything better, but the fact remains the bar is low and won't go much higher.

---

Peen...the bar won't go much higher?

...and you know this how?

Quote:

---

We have been a win a few football team for a decade. I don't want that any longer. We need to improve at QB.

---

What the Browns have done in the past, has nothing to do with the decisions facing the Browns front office when considering the QB position.

Also, it's not just QB play that needs to improve to win more games...it's the TE play, the WR play, the RB play and the Oline play...AND, the defense needs to improve..the Dline, the LBers, the DBs.

I would expect the entire offensive unit to show improvement next season now that they have had a season playing in Shurmur's offense. More weapons need to be added to make the offense more potent.. especially at WR and maybe at RB, especially if Hillis is not resigned.

The dilemma is, with so many holes to fill, can the Browns afford to spend their 1st round pick on another QB?...a QB who is starting at square one in Shurmur's offense, and may not even be starting his rookie season.

If RB Trent Richardson is available, would he not help the offense?

If WR Justin Blackmon is available, would he not help the offense?

If the Browns use their 1 rounder on a QB, you can say goodbye to Richardson and Blackmon.

I can hear some of you saying, well the Browns can come back and use the other 1st round pick we have from Atlanta to pick up a RB or WR after we draft a QB....BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DEFENSE?

...there goes the LB we need..

...there goes the DB we need..

The entire point I'm making...with so many positions of need, can the Browns afford to use their first round pick on a QB who is not likely to start right away and may or may not produce any better play at QB than the QBs we have.

Should the Browns continue to build the defense and add playmakers on offense, giving the QBs a chance to improve their play as they gain experience in Shurmur's offense and as the Browns continue to add offensive personnel?

The media and fans make it sound so easy, but with the Browns lack of enough talent at so many positions, it becomes a tough call for Holmgren and Heckert.

Is there anyone that believes the Browns offense will not be improved if we use our #1 on a RB or WR?

Is there anyone that believes the Browns defense will not be improved if they use our #1 on a LB or DB?

Quote:

---

That's not what I saw. I saw better play from a QB off the bench in his first start of the season.

---

No that's what you WANTED to see...

I didn't see ANY difference aside from Wallace having an extra gear in his legs that McCoy(and most QB's for that matter) doesn't have. And that is after HOW MANY years in the WCO???? with Colt in his first with no offseason.... Not to mention lets look at the caliber of defense of the Cards vs Pitt, BMore, Cincy, and everyone else Colt had to play...

The truth of the matter is that you had ALREADY made your decision WEEKS ago on Colt and are looking through colored lenses. Come on peen....better???? really????

When the Cards left the Vanilla defense behind....we saw the same offense as we did with Colt on the field...

Colt has his deficiencies...as does Wallace...but can you honestly say either were truly supported and placed in situations to succeed???

Unless its Luck, keep Colt and gather talent now.

Actualy, Wallace had better accuracy on the deeper throws than McCoy has shown this year. Both deep passes to Little were on the mark, and allowed him to run with the ball after the catch. The deep pass to Massaquoi was right where it had to be. Those are 3 throws that McCoy does not make.

Further, look at how involved the receivers were in this game. The wide receivers. Wallace completed 18 pases, and 12 went to wide receivers. That's not been the case this season. We have been dinking and dunking to TE and RB and WR in the flat ......

Little was targeted 9 times and had 5 catches.

Massaquoi was thrown to 5 times with 3 catches.

Norwood, 3 catches on 6 targets.

Cribbs was 1-1.

Of the incomplete passes, 3 were deep passes.

I can only recall 1 or 2 drops in this game. Somehow receivers caught the ball much better.

This was a different game than we are used to seeing from the QB position. Wallace is far from a perfect QB. His short passes to the outside had me seeing pick 6 on a couple of occasions .... but he somehow avoided that fate. He is much shorter than McCoy, yet didn't have a single pass batted down at the LOS.

You talk about the Cardinals defense like they are crap ...... but this is a team that has been on a winning tear lately. They have won 6 of their last 7 games. They started out awful on defense, then got worse. They allowed a stretch of 31, 34, 32, and 30 points. Then they got it turned around. Arizona has allowed 14 TD passes, compared to Cincinnati's 18, and Pittsburgh's 15. They have 9 INT compared to Cincinnati's 7, and Pittsburgh's 10. Arizona has 36 sacks compared to 39 for Cincinnati, and 30 for Pittsburgh. The Cardinals had a horrible stretch where they appeared headed for top 5 draft status, and then they turned it around, and did so largely on defense and a nice combination of a very solid running game, and a very effective deep passing game.

It's what I saw Pete.

As to mac's comment about raising the bar, yes, I do believe it won't go much higher.

First, it is starting pretty low. Guys don't usually make huge jumps.

Second, Colt doesn't have any one skill that just "Wows" you. He has a average arm. Below average accuracy, is slow to read the field, and isn't very fast.

There isn't one thing that makes you think, "Boy if we could just tap in to that on a regular basis".


Pete, it isn't about the wins, or lack of, it is about what my eyes see and what my mind tells me.

If at seasons end Colt grades out and is deemed worth of another year and we elect to not draft a top QB this year, so be it.

You guys are right and I am wrong. I was wanting to see things as you put it.

If we do draft a QB early, then maybe you and some others need to realize you weren't seeing clearly.

It's pretty simple really. If we draft a QB early on in the draft process, somewhere in the bowels of Berea someone isn't feeling very confident in Colt as the future of this team.

The same can be said if we bring in a FA QB.

Teams with a QB they believe in don't draft QBs early or bring in FA QB's to open up the competition.

Open competitions are only done by teams that are unsettled at the position or they have a aging star who they have to start planning for his eventual exit.

Colt isn't there yet, so we can rule out we are planning for his eventual retirement.....unless it's a forced retirement.

U know me..when I see a player who needs to be upgraded I say it..there's nothing I have seen in McCoy that lets me even think he can take his game to a higher level.
McCoy is what he is..a backup.
I saw nothing in his college game that made me think he was a franchise or a solid starter.
And people can toss out the "HE NEEDS HELP"..of course he does ,but even if he had everything around him ,there are things he can't do that would still hamper him.
So that said the Browns better get one of the top 4-5 QB's in this draft.
Doen with this..

Cleveland Browns' Shurmur declines to commit to QB Colt McCoy when he's recovered from concussion | cleveland.com
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2011/12/cleveland_browns_qb_colt_mccoy_15.html

Browns coach Pat Shurmur declined to commit to quarterback Colt McCoy as the starter when he's recovered from his concussion.

"I'm going to cross that bridge when they're both healthy," said Shurmur. "Right now, until Colt's healthy, we're going to go with Seneca."

Asked specifically if McCoy will start Saturday against the Ravens if healthy, Shurmur said, "If Colt is OK — when Colt is OK — we'll talk about that," said Shurmur. "How's that? Good answer?"

He said McCoy is improving, is day to day and hasn't yet been cleared to practice. He also said he'll know more today about his availability.

But his refusal to name him the starter when healthy marked at least a slight departure from Friday, when he was asked the same question and he said: "Yeah, he's our starting quarterback at this point. We can try and create whatever from that, but at this point, he's not playing and Seneca is."

So, did Shurmur see enough from Wallace in the 20-17 overtime loss to the Cardinals to want to see him again against the Ravens and maybe even the Steelers?

Shurmur spoke in glowing terms of Wallace following his performance in Arizona, one in which he completed 18 of 31 attempts for 226 yards, including a 76-yard touchdown pass to Greg Little. Wallace also fumbled at the Browns' 5 with seven minutes left in regulation.

"I thought for the most part, especially early in the game, Seneca executed well and got us in the end zone twice," said Shurmur. "The first drive was really good. We found a way to mix it up with the run and pass.

"We had some possession throws and a deep ball. We had some good explosive runs.

"That's what you want it to look like — the whole game. I don't think it's an indication necessarily of one or the other [Wallace or McCoy], but that's what you want it to look like."


He acknowledged McCoy has "done the same thing. In the last few weeks we've done that — drive the ball down the field. I wouldn't say that's just significant to Seneca. When you call a play, you're supposed to get yards, and when you get close, you're supposed to score.

"When you have a chance to make big plays, my thoughts go right back to the first drive. That drive reminds me of the first drive we had against the Bengals.

We were effective running it, we got a couple big plays, then we had a long touchdown pass to finish it. That's what you want your first drive to look like, to get points right off the bat." He also added he'd like to see McCoy finish the season if he can.

"It's important for all your players to make it through the year and compete up until the end," he said. "You especially want your guys who made the opening day roster to make it all the way through."

Shurmur indicated some players seemed to pick up their games with Wallace at the helm, and pointed out that there was only one dropped pass.

"I don't know about him in there compared to Colt," he said. "I'm constantly evaluating our players as we try to put together a plan to win games. There were some guys who probably showed up and flashed a little better than they have in the last couple weeks. Guys that have made some plays that I was glad to see. Greg [Little] made some plays this week, didn't drop the ball, I think that's a step forward. Peyton Hillis ran the ball extremely hard, played the whole game and is no worse for wear, so that's good."

He agreed with tight end Alex Smith, who said last week that McCoy will be "night and day" in the West Coast offense when he has an off-season to work in it. "I think there's some insight there," said Shurmur. "I think the longer you're involved with anything, the better you get a feel for what you're doing."

Wallace had the benefit of a 99-yard game by Hillis, and McCoy has been without Hillis most of the season. When the running back has been in there, he's been mostly banged up. When he did have a 94-yard game with McCoy as starter, the Browns beat the Colts.

Wallace faced the Cardinals' 21st-ranked defense (now 20th), while McCoy in the previous four weeks faced the No. 1, No. 3, No. 5 and No. 6 defenses.

The most recent time the Browns faced the No. 21 defense — St. Louis on Nov. 13 — Little tied his season high with six catches for 82 yards — including a 52-yarder.

Wallace, who is 6-13 as a starter, did show speed and scrambled away from the blitz to find Little singled up on a linebacker for the long touchdown. He also made quick decisions and got rid of the ball quickly. The tempo was good, but he managed only two first downs in his final four possessions and never got past the Arizona 47 in five drives after making it 17-7 in the third quarter. Also, he didn't have to contend with an Ed Reed or a Troy Polamalu.

A truer comparison between Wallace and McCoy would come against the Ravens' No. 3 defense and the Steelers' No. 1 defense.

And that might come whether McCoy is healthy or not.

Just my two cents...

We lack offensive weapons and that holds Colt back...no question. But if Barkley is there when we pick- I take him. There doesn;t seem to be a ton of top-end talent at positions of dire need for us this year (with the exception of Blackmon at WR) so I look at the best player on the board at a question mark position....and unfortunately, QB is one of em.

No to RG3 though.... Love hsi athleticism and arm but when you watch him play, its ALL college- not pro. Everything out of the shotgun, doesn't stick in pocket, alot of simple throws for YAC inflating his numbers. I haven;t seen a ton of him but what I have seen, I don;t see what the fuss is. If someone has a good highlight clip of him showing NFL ready skills, would love to take a gander.

I am not going to try to guess who the top QB's are.


I do fear this. I fear we are going to be in a win now mode next season and we don't take a QB just to add a few more wins, thinking we'll find a QB later.

Shurmur is being very politically correct here. No point on peeving off Wallace if Colt cannot go anyways. My guess is that if Colt is cleared, he will play since they already know what Wallace brings to the table (and it isn't much different from Colt with this offense anyways). I am going to guess we pick 4th this year and that unless Luck falls we go with either Blackmon or one of the two highly rated tackles (even if we have to play him at RT, as the new bargaining agreement makes this affordable now) and then use the other first on the position we didn't take earlier (I am assuming we sign Hillis).

***I am not sure Holmgren's ego will let him take a top pick QB. He is famous for being a QB guru and if that high pick pans, his legacy will be tarnished. I could see him bringing in a free agent or another 3rd rounder though.

Actually, the conventional wisdom is that you don't lose your job to injury. Wallace even said that's what he expected to happen. Shurmur's unwillingness to commit to McCoy starting when he's healthy and ready is telling, imo.

I think Colt's Dad threw the Browns under the bus, not Colt. In hindsight, he probably should have kept his mouth shut, because I think he hurt his son's standing with the FO.

If I think Colt is my man I do NOT start him again this year if he's really concussed. I let his head rest.

Concussions are out of hand! Anyone an NHL fan? It's epidemic!
Research is finding some awful issues with multiple concussions!

If I were an athlete I do not sell my golden years for 5 or 6 years of pro ball.

Completely off topic, but I can foresee a day very soon where there is no high school football (because minor's cannot sign off on health risks and schools will fear future liability) because of the new info coming out on the long run impacts of concussions.