DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Start Derek Anderson

In my opinion, the way you worded it.. it's not an "or" it's an "and"... we can't draft a first round QB without picking up a veteran... it's not possible. What are you going to do have Frye coming in for his 3rd year to mentor his first round eventual replacement? Hows that going to work? It won't.

Isn't that what SD did with Brees and Rivers? I thought they drafted Rivers as Brees was about to enter his third year (possibly 4th but still no different).

I see it as an "or".

IF you have a quality OL.and Frye doesn't pan out from "quality starter" standpoint,you can bring in a rookie and allow Charlie to "help teach him the system".

That's not being a mentor,but any WAY past his prime veteran as a third stringer on the cheap can supply that. So yes,you could do both.

But with a good OL,I don't really think you need a "mentor" per say,but someone to help him more readily grasp the system he's playing in. The coaching staff and his team mates can supply that.

Charlie will know this system very well in a year or two. There would be no reason he couldn't work with a rookie if needed.

JMHO

Thanks....see, that wasn't hard.

Sorry...sometimes it is hard to see the drip.


hehe....it's just worded in manner that requires one to think for a moment. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

i know you said you saw Anderson play in college and choke all the time...cool

I don't question for a moment Charlie is the starter.

All I think is he does indeed need a few more looks going into the off season.

[color:"red"] Unfortunately, I think the picture will be MUCH different in the PEE BOWL this Thursday. KC played a base D with four men rushing the majority of the game. This did not make any sense on their part, because we have proven that we CANNOT pickup the blitz on offense. Pittsburger, however, will blitz the crap out of Anderson. (maybe literally). Let's see what he does in response to a slim rushing game, and a relentless blitz package.
[/color]

U did notice that...Most teams would have blitzed a young QB who hasn't seen anything..yet they didn't.
Pukeburgh will come after Mr.Anderson and throw all the blitz clones they have at him..even if they are without Pola..
In fact even if Frye starts they will come after him to to hit him and see if they hurt him more since his wrist is not 100%..knocking him down will aggravate the injury more..
It might be better to start Anderson.

[color:"orange"]but a simple answer like "no" can be misleading and used as to bolster others positions and opinions.

"no" other options should always be explored.

BUT and its a big BUTT

CF has played well enough so that those optional talents have to be a lot better than some people think...not to just open the door as if the position is OPEN. CF has a good grasp on the QB position for us...Heck if a potential Manning comes along I'd like to think our "option" are open.

But Anderson I don't think is an option - not at this stage..maybe he can grow into a viable option and competition for the position. He ain't good enough to jerk around the starting QB position and state "Competition"

JMHO

I can't disagree...he isn't a option....but he is at minimum a possibility based on his initial performance.

If Frye is healthy....he should start tomorrow....if charlie is having a poor day...or the team, however you want to view it... Anderson should get a few calls between now and the end of the season.

Anderson showed me enough to at least make me curious as to what he can do. Before Charlie was hurt, I didn't have any real desire to see Anderson play other than I think every player on the team should get at least some play time. Especially on a team far from being in the hunt.

Now that he has been in, he deserves more looks.

If Frye is able to start I doubt if he finishes the game..the Steelers will hit him as often as possible to test that wrist..knock him down enough and that wrist is going to blow up.

He deserves looks as a back-up,when a back-up is "needed" and nothing more.

I think the whole argument is going to be moot as I'm seriously doubting that Charlie is going to be able to go. We may list him as the emrgency QB or something, but I don't think he's going to be able to play.

So Charlie is our set starter for the next 10 years??


Sorry Bubba...I don't agree Anderson deserves nothing more than to be looked at as a back-up and back-up only.

No one suggested that for 10 years. <img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif" alt="" />

Charlie is our starter for "this year".
Every off season,you should have competition for the position. Every off-season you should weigh what moves you wish to upgrade,change,or move upon.

Giving Anderson "looks" for the sake of "looks" can only create divisions for our team and cause contreversy to grow during the rest of the season. We need our team as a whole to learn Davidsons system and continue to grow,creating a distraction now,may set that curve back by a mile.

I see a lot to lose and little to nothing that can be gained by that experiment. Next season,the long term future? That's a horse of a different color.

Now it does appear as PPE mentioned,that Charlie won't be 100%. That's when you play your back-up. So I have no problem with that. But when Charlie is healthy,Charlie plays.

You see,it's a team. To disrupt this team,at this stage,for a "look see" is far more counterproductive to the team overall,than anything that can be gained by your curiosity alone.

So...What you are saying is that last year, Dilfer should have played out the season and Charlie should not have gotten any playing time. The team was and should have been Dilfer's team until the season was over.

That would also mean that you are saying that the same thing is true in Dallas.... The team was given to Bledsoe at the start of the year and Romo should not see the light of day unless Bledsoe gets injured....(which didn't happen)... That would mean Dallas would, now, most likely not be in playoff contention and would have to wait until next year to make a change in QBs.

I'm not taking sides here.... I'm just trying to make sure as to what you are saying...

[color:"orange"]Every situation is different...Dilfer - CF (05) and CF - DA (06)

you can't break it down so simplistically as oh its ok for the starter in 05 to sit and see what CF the back up could do but not ok for starter of 06 CF to sit and see what the backup DA can do.

Nowhere close to the same situation.

outside of a few fans and some Media who wish to have a story and sell their column.

The pecking order is quite clear.
CF starter
DA backup
there is no confusion about this by the coaching staff. As stated eaerlier cause its a Thursday game and probably CF won't get snaps (until maybe Thursday which in a normal game week enough time for him to be the starter) I expect DA to be the starter. CF will be there to save the day if the game situation predicates its.

JMHO

Nahhhh....I want to see Cribbs.... Can we see Cribbs at QB next??? <img src="/images/graemlins/naughtydevil.gif" alt="" />

[color:"red"]"Can we see Cribbs at QB next???"

[color:"orange"]We did and he gained 9 yds out of Shotgun.

I know you were just joking around.

But rest assured we will see more of Cribbs at QB.
1. The powers to be see Cribbs as an Impact player and maybe rightly so.
2. If we can make teams waste valuable preparation time for maybe 2-3 plays we will show a game. More power to us
<img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />
JMHO

Typically I would agree with that. I do think if a player is really stinking it up that you can give a look mid-season but I don't think Frye has played THAT bad.

In theory I agree with this too... but the coaches have had 16+ games to evaluate Charlie and have to have a pretty good indication of where he is and where he's capable of going.... so while Charlie is the starter..... if Anderson gets the start on Thursday, then his offseason competition begins then... the coaches probably wouldn't admit that but when the offseason rolls around and evaluations begin, they will give real game experience a lot of weight in making the decision....

Agreed... sort of. It is a team and every player on the team should know that if the team has an opportunity to upgrade the position, they will. Because the goal in the end is to win, not lose close games with the current people....

So as the coaches, I don't think you give Anderson a look for "curiosity"... you give him a start if you have solid reason to believe he has a chance to win the job.....

I understand that you're not taking sides and I will be glad to explain the glaring differences in these scenarios.

1. Dilfer/Charlie
Charlie was drafted as our "future QB". It was the intent from the beginning that Dilfer was not the future of the Browns and that he would simply be a fill in untill Charlie was ready. They had hoped Dilfer would act as a teacher for Charlie and could at least be somewhat productive.

Unfortunately,with the total lack of an OL and Dilfers lack of mobility,that didn't pan out. So while they did make the change earlier than they would have liked to,it was a change that was to occur anyway. Simply a little more hurried progression than anticipated.

2. The Tuna had to make a critical choice. It was a make or break situation concerning making the playoffs. Bledsoe was completly stinking up the joint to the point that had Parcells not made a move,the playoffs would have been a lost cause. I don't even think it was a move he wanted to make,but rather a last gasp effort,the only option available to make some attempt at saving his teams hopes of making the playoff.

Anderson was not brought here to be the starter this year like Charlie was last year. And if he had starter potential,don't you think our coaching staff would have had a clue about that? Totaly different scenario.

We are not in a make or break situation concerning the playoffs. So comparing this to Dallas is once again another completly different scenario.

IMO- We just aquired a new OC and are trying hard to teach the O a new scheme. Adding a QB contreversy to the mix can only serve to detract and be a negative in accomplishing this. We don't need distractions in this point of that development. That is our scenario. And it is uniquely different than the two you brought to the table.

And to add to that,the last half Charlie played,he performed better than the only half Anderson played. If you want to make any type of comparison,you must compare their performance vs the same defense. Charlies percentages were higher at 11 for 13 with zero int's when given the same oppertunity against the same defense. That's not a time to start playing "QB experiment" IMO

There's one problem I see with your post DC.

You're looking at Charlie over 16 games.

In all fairness,we must look at both QB's performance against the same D. Charlie's stats were better. So we take Anderson who's stats were worse against the same D and consider experimenting now?

I don't see that.

Situations might be different, but the principal is the same.

Giving the kid a few series here and there in games that are largely decided isn't going to hurt anything.

People have this fear of controversy stemming from the Holcomb/Couch nightmare <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

But as I have said earlier....that will always be a possibility if the starter doesn't or isn't able to draw a clear line between him and whoever is in the back-up role.

Sometimes I wonder if you are a goof....and you are my friend so I feel like I can say that without getting in too much trouble.

I say that with love in my heart <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think you also have to look at experience level. Is it possible Anderson gets better as he gains experience?? I hope so since that is what we have hoped with Charlie.

The one thing anyone can notice about Anderson is his arm...the balls get there in a hurry....and that is something Charlie will never have. We heard much about Chucks improved arm strength....I haven't noticed anything different between this year or last.

This isn't a case of me not wanting Charlie or bashing the kid. for the 1000th time....I simply feel we need to give Anderson some shots.

Charlie might be good, but he isn't so good we need to close the book on the position and not think we might be able to do better.

Winning is my motivation. I simply want to win. Nothing else about the browns really matters to me. I would be all for Pitdawg himself as QB for the Browns if I thought it might give us a better shot.


Like I said....don't be mad.....you know I don't think you are a goof. <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />


Most of the time anyway <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[color:"red"]"Giving the kid a few series here and there in games that are largely decided isn't going to hurt anything."

[color:"orange"]You act like all our games our 26-0 or something...got news for you there have hardly been any games largely decided for that scenario to come. And this isn't College where your kid is gone in 4 years or less no matter what. You have to be wary on mentally killing your young QB as well.

Actually principal...bs
fear of controversy...bs

I'm not looking to give up on my young QB cause fans are curious <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

And it isn't the same as Dilfer last year. Dilfer knew and all knew he was not the future...he was the stopgap mentor.

[color:"red"]"Situations might be different, but the principal is the same."

[color:"orange"]Sorry you lost me completely on that one. Situation is different and most definately are the principles...just cause you were curious then and now don't make it the "same"

Ahhhhhh...forget it.

The days of me sticking with it are done.

Bottom line is this....I don't give a damn who plays qb or any other position for that matter as long as they are near the best. If not, I want better.

If someone on the roster could be better, play him and see. If you don't have someone on the roster....bring people in until you do.

That won't change.

I agree that we should be open to the idea of Anderson.
I also agree the guy has a cannon... & I don't see much point in arguing about it until the proof's in the pudding.

Kind of where I am at.....it's all going to work out the way it should anyway....that I do know.

No,I'm not mad Peen. That one point you called me on was a valid call on your part.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

But the one thing even you must admit. At least I think you will.

We just changed OC's in mid-stream. And after only a few weeks,it seems the team is starting to get it. We have five weeks left for real game time play for Davidson to keep this learning process ongoing. To get our players to be adjusting to his system.

From my understanding,each week,he's mixing in more and more. From the team concept,the overall good of the team,I don't think playing rotating QB's will do anything but serve as a distraction to the overall team.

I prefer the stability of the overall team than experimentation that can only serve as a distraction. But in all honesty,if Anderson starts Thursday due to Charlies injury,I,unfortunatly feel you will see this post as a moot point.
<img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Remember you started it GM. First of all Tim Couch was and is the best QB we have had since our return to the NFL in 99 and if you have any proof otherwise then please let me know. How soon we forget the trill of victory.

Yes I will admit that he was not the prettiest doing it but Tim showed he could win, and that my friend is the bottom line (at least to me) and if winning and playoffs are not exciting to you then I feel sorry for you! <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

He won games with alot less talent on the team than there is now and the OL is way better than the one he had.

The guy loved the Browns and has paid the price with his body which will be a constant reminder for that devotion for the rest of his life.

I would trade Frye and Anderson for a healthy Tim Couch anyday! <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

So go ahead and be sarcastic about my respect for what Tim did for our Browns while he was here, but it shows nothing but disrespect for a guy that gave his all and helped us to enjoy the only playoff appearance since our return. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I ya give as much grief as anyone on the Couch thing, but one thing I can say for certain:

[color:"orange"] Since The Return, we have never beaten the Pittsburgh Steelers without Tim Couch as our starting QB.[/color]

...and I STILL laugh to myself whenever I think of the one audio clip from the 33-13 Sunday Night game where one of their defensive players says sarcastically "Oh, now we're letting Tim Couch run for touchdowns??". Funny Stuff <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

PPE, I laugh myself at those things and you know as well as I that Tim was not God but the disrespect is unbelievable around here.

I sometime wonder how he lost the starting job after a winning season in 2002. I have been very hard on the Butcher for that but sometimes I wonder if he might have succumbed to fan pressure. I guess we will never know and it all is a moot point at this time.

But it still drives me crazy that Tim can get no respect even when every QB we had since can do no better.

Oh yea I remember that Squeelers game and I remember jumping out of my chair and screeming "hell yea" at the top of my lungs. The sad part is I have not done it since. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Then you weren't watching this past Sunday.... there were *plenty* of reasons to do that <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

I did watch it but it was not the same. Maybe this will help explain it (and I hate to admit it but) on NFL network they asked Rod Woodson which place was harder for an opposing team to play in Cleveland or Pittsburgh and he said in the past it would have been the Dawg Pound but now it is the Puppy Pound.

I was pissed at first and started thinking that he might be right. The feeling is not the same as it was in the past. Am I goofy or what? <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Should we go with 10 oz, or 12 oz gloves <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Just to remind you Corp, I was bashed almost as much as you for pimping TC, and saying Kelly was not the answer. The difference is that I supported Kelly whenever he played without bashing him and crying about poor TC getting the shaft. I also supported Dilfer, Frye (remember I was one of the few who thought CF should not even sniff the field until AFTER this season) and I'll support Anderson whenever he plays. You are however so bitter about TC's treatment, Injuries, and lack of a chance to succeed it has made you bitter and jaded when it has come to every other QB who has put on a Browns uniform.

j/c

Aren't our current qb's Frye and Anderson? Why are we talking about TC?

C'mon, leave the dead buried.

Since I was talking with Ballpeen the other day I'll make this comment on his post.

food for thought:

it was mentioned on the NFL channel the other day that the Steelers will be salivating
if Anderson gets the start

I just wonder if that means they expect he will do good against them....

yea that must be it.. <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

No,it's a mystrious condition that affects all males living in pittsburg.In females,the need to constantly wear sweatpants and grow mustaches also has modern science baffled.

Yes I am Pit. I'm looking at the body of information that I have.. that's really all we can look at. And for fairness sake, I'll throw out the final 4 games of last year and start with the Saints game of this year... from that game until the Chiefs game, Charlie looked virtually the same. Some high points, some low points, but in general I just didn't see any trend upward which would lead me to believe he was getting a whole lot better.

I have already stated that Charlie was playing well against the Chiefs. I have also already stated that IF Charlie is 100% then he should start. I'm NOT in favor of starting Anderson just to start him, some are, I'm not. What I said was that IF Anderson gets the start against the Steelers, that in the offseason the coaches will pay as much, if not more, emphasis on his real game experience than they will in his performance in camp when they have to make the decision who starts next year.

The one thing Anderson did, that Charlie hasn't shown a great proficiency to do, is lead game tying and game winning drives, late in games... this isn't always reflected in the stats. An int in the middle of the first quarter and an int that kills your potential game winning drive both show up in the stats as "1 int".... a sack before halftime and a sack that stops your potential game winning drive show up as "1 sack"... so stats are useful but what I saw from Anderson in the 4th quarter was impressive and something I haven't really seen from Charlie and it won't be reflected in the stats. Even the INT that Anderson threw in the 4th quarter... it was bad and we could have won the game in regulation... and in all honesty when KC won the coin flip, I thought the game was over for 2 reasons.. 1. I didn't think we could stop KC and 2. even if we did I thought Anderson would go into a shell (or the coaches would stop letting him throw) and we wouldn't be able to move the ball... I was wrong. Our defense did stop them and on our first offensive play, Anderson throws for 25 yards to Winslow... in OT he was 2 for 2, for 34 yards and he had a 33 yard run.....

I'm NOT saying that Anderson is the guy or that we know all we need to know.
I'm NOT saying that Frye should be benched out of idle curiosity.
I'm NOT saying that Frye didn't look just as good against KC.

[color:"orange"]Sorry - you n I will always differ on that. I understand you want an All Star at every position and if he doesn't prove he is that All Star from the get go...get rid of him he's a bum why waste time grooming him - onto the next guy.

Well too many good to great players have evolved and weren't great from day one. I'm not impressionable...if we do it your way you think we end up with a Manning...but probably we would end up with a Clint Longley instead <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

If we had Lienart you would have thrown him in the dirt already cause he has had some sucky games. Same with Vince Young...same with Alex Smith.

Play DA cause CF might be hurt...yes. Play him cause - well CF has struggled getting hit 76 times <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> (like any QB in the NFL wouldn't) maybe Anderson can be a magician...

What I do understand is you didn't see CF play great in that 1st half...you were excited with the lasting first impression of DA garnishing an emotional win...don't get mad at me for not looking at football like you. In your - I'm just looking for perfection and won't settle for mediocre like you guys - attitude you think you are on the high road to a SB...but I see a guy forever selling that productive COW for a bag of MAGIC BEANS...that simply do not exist.

Yeah - scrap the development of Frye - kill his ego for years to come why not we got this QB who will take golden craps - sorry for not joining in.

JMHO

The "old" Pound... will never be back. It was one of a kind and it died with Muni Stadium.

Add in that there hasn't been much for people to get stirred up over in recent years and it exasperates the situation, but it's also simply a matter of what people make of it. Win or Lose, if we want The Dawg Pound to be 'feared' again, it's up to US, not the team. They can only help motivate us, but either way it's up to us to do it.

That said, get your ass off your couch (no pun intended, really <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />) and get on a plane to help scream <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />