DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Colt McCoy...

Quote:

---

He's about to engage in an uphill battle for a backup gig. I could see a team ponying up a fifth or a sixth for him as an insurance policy. But a starter?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

to be real. its none any offence

---

Lets just hope no one gets tired...

"A couple times I just threw the ball in the dirt to let those guys rest. We were throwing the ball down the field and those guys were tired." said McCoy

Link

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He's about to engage in an uphill battle for a backup gig. I could see a team ponying up a fifth or a sixth for him as an insurance policy. But a starter?

---

There are no professional talent scouts on this board, and thoughts posted on this at the moment are pure speculation. So here's my opinion, I could see McCoy landing somewhere else if he don't pan out in Cleveland, but I doubt it'll happen until 014.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He's about to engage in an uphill battle for a backup gig. I could see a team ponying up a fifth or a sixth for him as an insurance policy. But a starter?

---

There are no professional talent scouts on this board, and thoughts posted on this at the moment are pure speculation. So here's my opinion, I could see McCoy landing somewhere else if he don't pan out in Cleveland, but I doubt it'll happen until 014.

---

Speculation is what we do on football message boards.

But the speculation that McCoy won't be on the team and won't garner any interest as a starting QB are backed up by very strong evidence.

Speculation that he's going to stay with the team or that an NFL team would trade for him with the starting QB position in mind isn't really backed by any logical or rational indicators.

Could he be on the Browns after final cuts? Yeah. Could a team trade for him to be the starter? Yeah.

But both scenarios are extremely unlikely.

He'll most likely be a part of the final cuts, or shipped for a 5th-6th-7th rounder on draft day.

---

Quote:

---

and I will ask you too. who on the team for the spread option would you take? weeden or McCoy?

---

Quote:

---

oh I get that. I realy don't like McCoy. not as a person and not much as a player. the sad part is he might be the best QB on the roster for what chud wants to do. hey face facts and he might be for any of the offence he want to run.

---

Really?


Browns CEO Joe Banner said Thursday that when Cleveland opens training camp, quarterback Brandon Weeden will be the starter -- but with a caveat.
Newly signed signal-caller Jason Campbell will compete for the job, Banner told ESPNCleveland radio, via Mary Kay Cabot of The Plain Dealer. Banner also reiterated that the Browns won't rule out selecting a quarterback in the 2013 NFL Draft.


In what figures to be a crowded house, the writing is on the wall for backup quarterback Colt McCoy. He isn't a fit for coach Rob Chudzinski's vertical passing attack, but Banner told the radio station McCoy won't be released -- for now -- but the Browns are open to trading him.



Link

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and I will ask you too. who on the team for the spread option would you take? weeden or McCoy?

---

You already asked me that, and I already answered.

If we were to draft a quarterback with the the idea of a spread option offense in mind, the most likely and logical scenario would be to release McCoy and trade Weeden for a second day pick, leaving Campbell as the back-up or as a starter who keeps the seat warm for the rook.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

oh I get that. I realy don't like McCoy. not as a person and not much as a player. the sad part is he might be the best QB on the roster for what chud wants to do. hey face facts and he might be for any of the offence he want to run.

---

Really?


Browns CEO Joe Banner said Thursday that when Cleveland opens training camp, quarterback Brandon Weeden will be the starter -- but with a caveat.
Newly signed signal-caller Jason Campbell will compete for the job, Banner told ESPNCleveland radio, via Mary Kay Cabot of The Plain Dealer. Banner also reiterated that the Browns won't rule out selecting a quarterback in the 2013 NFL Draft.


In what figures to be a crowded house, the writing is on the wall for backup quarterback Colt McCoy. He isn't a fit for coach Rob Chudzinski's vertical passing attack, but Banner told the radio station McCoy won't be released -- for now -- but the Browns are open to trading him.



Link

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and I will ask you too. who on the team for the spread option would you take? weeden or McCoy?

---

You already asked me that, and I already answered.

If we were to draft a quarterback with the the idea of a spread option offense in mind, the most likely and logical scenario would be to release McCoy and trade Weeden for a second day pick, leaving Campbell as the back-up or as a starter who keeps the seat warm for the rook.

---

so if we took a say 7th round draft pick for spread option you would be ok with with him as the backup of Campbell?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and I will ask you too. who on the team for the spread option would you take? weeden or McCoy?

---

You already asked me that, and I already answered.

If we were to draft a quarterback with the the idea of a spread option offense in mind, the most likely and logical scenario would be to release McCoy and trade Weeden for a second day pick, leaving Campbell as the back-up or as a starter who keeps the seat warm for the rook.

---

so if we took a say 7th round draft pick for spread option you would be ok with with him as the backup of Campbell?

---

When teams take QB's in the 7th round, it's often as a project or a flyer pick, not as a soon to be incumbent or someone to build the offense around.

If we were to take a spread option QB in the 7th round, you would probably see a depth chart that reads like 'Weeden/Campbell/7th rounder' or 'Campbell/7th rounder'.

Now, if we were to take, say, Geno Smith, then you'd probably see 'Smith/Campbell' or 'Campbell/Smith'.

---

Quote:

---

013 QB depth chart...

McCoy - Davy Jones' locker mate
Weeden - treading water
Campbell - has leaky water wings

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and I will ask you too. who on the team for the spread option would you take? weeden or McCoy?

---

You already asked me that, and I already answered.

If we were to draft a quarterback with the the idea of a spread option offense in mind, the most likely and logical scenario would be to release McCoy and trade Weeden for a second day pick, leaving Campbell as the back-up or as a starter who keeps the seat warm for the rook.

---

so if we took a say 7th round draft pick for spread option you would be ok with with him as the backup of Campbell?

---

When teams take QB's in the 7th round, it's often as a project or a flyer pick, not as a soon to be incumbent or someone to build the offense around.

If we were to take a spread option QB in the 7th round, you would probably see a depth chart that reads like 'Weeden/Campbell/7th rounder' or 'Campbell/7th rounder'.

Now, if we were to take, say, Geno Smith, then you'd probably see 'Smith/Campbell' or 'Campbell/Smith'.

---

take it one step futher. say a 4th or 7th round pick? who then?

---

Quote:

---

013 QB depth chart...

McCoy
Weeden
Campbell

---

What are you basing this on, outside of wishful thinking?

We just signed McCoy's replacement. Immediately afterwards, Banner pretty much said that McCoy will be competing for a backup position, and that we're looking to trade him or cut him if we don't see the need for a third stringer.

The writing is on the wall.

You honestly think we just signed Campbell with the intent of him being a third stringer?

Campbell will either start or backup. Backup is most likely.

McCoy will either be traded or released. Release is most likely, but I could see him garnering a late round pick from a team looking for a backup/spot starter.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and I will ask you too. who on the team for the spread option would you take? weeden or McCoy?

---

You already asked me that, and I already answered.

If we were to draft a quarterback with the the idea of a spread option offense in mind, the most likely and logical scenario would be to release McCoy and trade Weeden for a second day pick, leaving Campbell as the back-up or as a starter who keeps the seat warm for the rook.

---

so if we took a say 7th round draft pick for spread option you would be ok with with him as the backup of Campbell?

---

When teams take QB's in the 7th round, it's often as a project or a flyer pick, not as a soon to be incumbent or someone to build the offense around.

If we were to take a spread option QB in the 7th round, you would probably see a depth chart that reads like 'Weeden/Campbell/7th rounder' or 'Campbell/7th rounder'.

Now, if we were to take, say, Geno Smith, then you'd probably see 'Smith/Campbell' or 'Campbell/Smith'.

---

take it one step futher. say a 4th or 7th round pick? who then?

---

I think I laid out pretty much any scenario there is, from high-investment first rounder to seventh round flyer.

If we were to invest highly, the most likely scenario would be either Campbell backing up the rook or keeping the seat warm while he readies himself.

If we were to make a low investment, you'd probably see them as either the backup to Campbell or the third stringer behind Weeden and Campbell.

---

your quick. im half in the bag you win. tried to edit it but your just to quick.

Quote:

---

funny. just read something about the 3 QBs in the draft we are bringing to look at. all 3 are spread option. who on the roster right now would be best at it?

---

Quote:

---

If Weeden preforms no better than he did last year, I'd take McCoy over Weeden and the aging vet any day.

---

Quote:

---

Released?

Colt McCoy won’t be with the Browns much longer

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 27, 2013, 2:13 PM EDT The signing of quarterback Jason Campbell will hasten a move that everyone has been expecting: The Browns will soon part ways with quarterback Colt McCoy.

Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that McCoy is expected to be released or traded soon.

The “or traded” part of that seems unlikely. It’s hard to see why any team would be willing to give up even a seventh-round draft pick for McCoy, knowing he’s about to be available for nothing.

Former Browns President Mike Holmgren took McCoy with a third-round pick in the 2010 NFL draft. McCoy has thrown 21 touchdowns and 20 interceptions with the Browns, who have gone 6-15 in games he started.

Campbell is expected to compete with Brandon Weeden for the starting job in Cleveland.

---

Quote:

---

your quick. im half in the bag you win.

---

Explains alot of your posts!

Quote:

---

LOL, I just posted that to get your goat. Honestly I agree, I didn't think for a moment they'd take Weeden in the first however, I did believe they'd take a QB later in the draft to be a backup to McCoy, and if McCoy wouldn't elevate his play, they'd possibly move him and most likely get something for him from a team that was in need of a #2 QB due to him playing the position for the entire season (barring there would be no injury).

My whole beef all along was selecting Weeden to be the starter, and I felt they should have gone one more season with Colt as the starter to see exactly what they have in him while making him attractive to trade if things didn't work out while using the Weeden pick on an impact player.

---

I actually thought that we were going to take Weeden in the second, which I was afraid of. I thought a second was too high of an investment in him.

If you go back through the long list of QB's we've had since the return, you could easily argue that almost all of our moves at QB were stopgaps or desperation moves.

I don't think we pulled the trigger on a premium option since Tim Couch (not that that worked out, but...). From there it's been aging vets, mid-round projects, or second-tier prospects.

I think as far as being infuriated, the three worst moves for me were Quinn (didn't like him personally, thought he'd bust), Garcia (wanted Roethlisberger badly), and Weeden (29 year old from a rudimentary offense in the first round).

I think what you see a lot amongst Browns fans is such a dislike for the incumbent that anyone else starts to seem like a good option one can talk themselves into.

Quote:

---

look at last years posts. they say the same.

---

There you go, stirring up trouble.

Quote:

---

They are letting Weeden start because he was the starter last year AND because he is still getting first round treatment. But, once things start flying it's anybody's game. Colt was said to compete with Campbell and Campbell set to compete with Weeden. Should Colt pass up Campbell and if Weeden can't hack it, who do you think starts the season? Colt.

I know it's difficult for Colt bashers to grasp but picture it as paper, rock, scissors. Campbell beats Weeden, Colt beats Campbell. Case closed. It's really not all that difficult... but I can see how blind hatred of Colt could make this hard to swallow.

---

I don't know how everyone else doesn't see that logic.

There are valid reasons and plenty of FO "media" evidence that Colt is unlikely to be on the team this season. If you disagree with geeze, 95%?, of the rest of the fans that is fine. But to act as if it is obvious that Colt will be the starter is bizarre man.

It would be nice if you would say something like "I know most of you disagree with me, and I know the FO has made some statements suggesting strongly Colt will be the #3 QB if not traded/cut, but I think he will end up the starter due to his superior skills if they give him a chance in camp"

It quite sincerely isn't anyone's game. The way the FO has presented the QB situation Weeden is far and away the starter going into the season. We don't have any training camp yet so obviously we can't speculate about anyone's performance yet. Thus why the silly debate still rages on.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

your quick. im half in the bag you win.

---

Explains alot of your posts!

---

I post better when half in the bag than you do in the pathetic posts you do.

Quote:

---

I think what you see a lot amongst Browns fans is such a dislike for the incumbent that anyone else starts to seem like a good option one can talk themselves into.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They are letting Weeden start because he was the starter last year AND because he is still getting first round treatment. But, once things start flying it's anybody's game. Colt was said to compete with Campbell and Campbell set to compete with Weeden. Should Colt pass up Campbell and if Weeden can't hack it, who do you think starts the season? Colt.

I know it's difficult for Colt bashers to grasp but picture it as paper, rock, scissors. Campbell beats Weeden, Colt beats Campbell. Case closed. It's really not all that difficult... but I can see how blind hatred of Colt could make this hard to swallow.

---

I don't know how everyone else doesn't see that logic.

There are valid reasons and plenty of FO "media" evidence that Colt is unlikely to be on the team this season. If you disagree with geeze, 95%?, of the rest of the fans that is fine. But to act as if it is obvious that Colt will be the starter is bizarre man.

It would be nice if you would say something like "I know most of you disagree with me, and I know the FO has made some statements suggesting strongly Colt will be the #3 QB if not traded/cut, but I think he will end up the starter due to his superior skills if they give him a chance in camp"

It quite sincerely isn't anyone's game. The way the FO has presented the QB situation Weeden is far and away the starter going into the season. We don't have any training camp yet so obviously we can't speculate about anyone's performance yet. Thus why the silly debate still rages on.

---

Quote:

---

They are letting Weeden start because he was the starter last year AND because he is still getting first round treatment. But, once things start flying it's anybody's game. Colt was said to compete with Campbell and Campbell set to compete with Weeden. Should Colt pass up Campbell and if Weeden can't hack it, who do you think starts the season? Colt.

I know it's difficult for Colt bashers to grasp but picture it as paper, rock, scissors. Campbell beats Weeden, Colt beats Campbell. Case closed. It's really not all that difficult... but I can see how blind hatred of Colt could make this hard to swallow.

---

Quote:

---

I know it's difficult for Colt bashers to grasp but picture it as paper, rock, scissors. Campbell beats Weeden, Colt beats Campbell. Case closed. It's really not all that difficult... but I can see how blind hatred of Colt could make this hard to swallow.

---

Quote:

---

95% of the fans? That's a tough number to swallow. Maybe like half, maybe. But I highly doubt that it's 5%, highly doubt it. Highly. Almost sure it's not 95%. Prove it, you can't and you won't. Do you know why? Because it's purely your speculations. I don't pretend to talk for the rest of us, I just know what I would do personally... 95%? Wow, I'm almost positive that's not right.

---

If you were to poll every Browns fan and ask 'Do you think Colt McCoy has a legitimate shot at being named the starting QB this season?', I am pretty confident that the no's would compromise an overwhelming majority.

95% sounds about right.

We could always start a poll over at K-9 Consensus and get a sample size...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

95% of the fans? That's a tough number to swallow. Maybe like half, maybe. But I highly doubt that it's 5%, highly doubt it. Highly. Almost sure it's not 95%. Prove it, you can't and you won't. Do you know why? Because it's purely your speculations. I don't pretend to talk for the rest of us, I just know what I would do personally... 95%? Wow, I'm almost positive that's not right.

---

If you were to poll every Browns fan and ask 'Do you think Colt McCoy has a legitimate shot at being named the starting QB this season?', I am pretty confident that the no's would compromise an overwhelming majority.

95% sounds about right.

We could always start a poll over at K-9 Consensus and get a sample size...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

95% of the fans? That's a tough number to swallow. Maybe like half, maybe. But I highly doubt that it's 5%, highly doubt it. Highly. Almost sure it's not 95%. Prove it, you can't and you won't. Do you know why? Because it's purely your speculations. I don't pretend to talk for the rest of us, I just know what I would do personally... 95%? Wow, I'm almost positive that's not right.

---

If you were to poll every Browns fan and ask 'Do you think Colt McCoy has a legitimate shot at being named the starting QB this season?', I am pretty confident that the no's would compromise an overwhelming majority.

95% sounds about right.

We could always start a poll over at K-9 Consensus and get a sample size...

---

Quote:

---

If this organization could actually develop a QB and stop adding to the long list of failed ones, i really wouldn't care who the guy is. Seems like they either select one, and he is labeled as a bust after one season, or they bring in a vet that's not going to be in the league much longer anyway. I want to back the incumbent while a rookie that has all the attributes sits behind him, and is developed, but we haven't had that opportunity. We can't switch every season, and expect good things to happen.

---

Hmm, interesting concept.

What do you think of the Browns going the way of the Redskins and drafting two QBs in the draft next month?

I wouldn't say at #6, but in back-to-back rounds? Say, in rounds 2 & 3 after trading back, or in rounds 3 & 4?

For ease of use, let's use the CBS Sports rankings of the QBs.

Currently, they list Ryan Nassib, E.J. Manuel, Tyler Wilson as 2nd rounders. They list Mike Glennon & Tyler Bray as cusp 2nd or 3rd rounders and Landry Jones as a cusp 3-4 rounder. Behind him, they throw in Matt Scott as a 4th or 5th round cusp selection.

So, sitting as we are, without a 2nd rounder, would you be against going after either Glennon or Bray if they are still there in the 3rd and then taking either Jones or Scott in the 4th? Taking two QBs to work for the job?

Or, suggesting that the Browns manage to trade back and pick up a 2nd rounder, would you then take either Nassib, Manuel or Wilson in the 2nd and then follow that selection up with either Glennon, Bray, Jones or Scott?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If this organization could actually develop a QB and stop adding to the long list of failed ones, i really wouldn't care who the guy is. Seems like they either select one, and he is labeled as a bust after one season, or they bring in a vet that's not going to be in the league much longer anyway. I want to back the incumbent while a rookie that has all the attributes sits behind him, and is developed, but we haven't had that opportunity. We can't switch every season, and expect good things to happen.

---

Hmm, interesting concept.

What do you think of the Browns going the way of the Redskins and drafting two QBs in the draft next month?

I wouldn't say at #6, but in back-to-back rounds? Say, in rounds 2 & 3 after trading back, or in rounds 3 & 4?

For ease of use, let's use the CBS Sports rankings of the QBs.

Currently, they list Ryan Nassib, E.J. Manuel, Tyler Wilson as 2nd rounders. They list Mike Glennon & Tyler Bray as cusp 2nd or 3rd rounders and Landry Jones as a cusp 3-4 rounder. Behind him, they throw in Matt Scott as a 4th or 5th round cusp selection.

So, sitting as we are, without a 2nd rounder, would you be against going after either Glennon or Bray if they are still there in the 3rd and then taking either Jones or Scott in the 4th? Taking two QBs to work for the job?

Or, suggesting that the Browns manage to trade back and pick up a 2nd rounder, would you then take either Nassib, Manuel or Wilson in the 2nd and then follow that selection up with either Glennon, Bray, Jones or Scott?

---

Quote:

---

well everyone knows but you that haslem is big on the spread option.

---

I guess you can add me to that list. Of course we hired a guy at HC n OC who have stated what they want here...not once did I here the words Spread Option. I've heard a Vertical Stretch offense.

Wait...maybe that is a term they will be using at the Pilot stations. For Fuel, Eatery n Poop

Wow...Raiders included us...well the or a deal is done with the Seahawks for Flynn - I would compare Colt to Flynn - only difference was Flynn played a game or two in one of the greatest systems in place while Colt bounced from two systems with nothing in place.

Just another reason how Continuity pays off. We'd be able to trade Colt for a 2nd rounder if we had an O that a competent QB steps in n looks great for a couple of games.

JMHO Flynn is not better than Colt. Raiders are going no where. But this just might mean we drop back not too far if a teams wishes to jump Bills for Geno

Quote:

---

If Weeden preforms no better than he did last year, I'd take McCoy over Weeden and the aging vet any day.

---

After watching him throwing it into the ground when we did see him last year? He is not the best of the worst we have so far at the QB position.

But we all have our dreams so you're entitled to yours.