Browns and Rex Grossman - DawgTalkers.net

We have to assume that Hoyer will get dinged at some point and miss a game or two - history tells us that. When that happens, I am not thrilled that the next man up will be Rex Grossman. That feels a lot like watching #3 take the field last year.

I'd rather kick the tires on guys like Sanchez, Matt Flynn, Kevin Kolb, or Shaun Hill. Heck, I might rather watch Colt McCoy as a backup than Rex Grossman. People say "yeah but he knows Shanahan's offense.", and I think, come on, what are we talking about here, Chinese Algebra? Pro QBs are bright individuals, with certain notable exceptions (#3), and should be able to pick up any offense pretty quickly without some veteran mentor being kept around for that reason alone.

I;d thought we'd sign him for sure the second Schaub was traded. Kind thought that was the only reason the Browns were waiting was to see if what trade from Houston for Schaub or waiting for him to get cut... now neither of those are a possibility sooooo...

Experience in the offense is good. Terrible play is not. He has more interceptions than touchdowns.

Grossman has stunk wherever he has played. The fans have ended up despising him. The guy was booed on family night in Chicago. You will end up feeling the same way if you have to watch him play.

Here is a part of an article to illustrate my point:

Quote:

Midway through the third quarter on Saturday, Rex Grossman made his first on-field appearance of the season at FedEx Field. The fans booed. Loudly.

The jeers were easily audible on the Redskins television broadcast. They were easily audible on the Colts television broadcast, and the Redskins radio broadcast, and the Colts radio broadcast. And they were easily audible at FedEx Field, where media members and fans immediately began tweeting about the home team’s backup QB getting booed without having done a single thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-s...a6d89_blog.html

Here is a quote from Rex that kind of sums him up:

Quote:

I'm going to naturally make plays. I'm not going to force anything. There's a fine line between just being a gunslinger and running the offense. I'd like to be 90% running offense, with that other 10% being my own personality

It's that 10% that is the killer.

Here is another excerpt from yet another article:

Quote:

Grossman can move the chains at times, but he also consistently turns the ball over. Even he admitted this week that turnovers lose football games. Only two other quarterbacks, Josh Freeman and Phillip Rivers, have more interceptions that Rex's 16, and he has far fewer attempts. Imagine if he was never benched. He could be leading the league. In 13 starts as the Redskins' quarterback, he has 20 interceptions.

Grossman believes the Skins could have won more if they eliminated turnovers. In his nine-year career Grossman has thrown 56 interceptions and 52 touchdowns. His passer rating is 28th in the league. He's not changing and the Redskins are not going anywhere with him.
http://dc.sbnation.com/washington-redski...ins-quarterback

I wonder............is experience in a system more important than a guy who can't take care of the ball?

Quote:

............is experience in a system more important than a guy who can't take care of the ball?

Yes....as long as he never sees the field. I expect that he is here primarily for mentoring purposes and emergency backup.

Our third string QB almost always sees the field.

Quote:

Our third string QB almost always sees the field.

Yes...most unfortunately.

j/c...

He was the expected veteran BACK UP signing about a month ago when Kyle took over as the OC. So this rumor/whatever it is - does not come as a surprise. It makes more sense than Schaub rumors that were abound.

He knows the Offense. He knows the NFL. At this stage of his career he has accepted a veteran backup role and can help a young QB as well as WRs get acclimated with the new Offense.

This signing would not change any plans regarding the draft and the QB position. It is to fill a back up void by our release of Weeden and Campbell. Which leaves one more hole to fill - and I expect it to be done from the draft!

Rookie - Grossman, with Hoyer the projected Starter. I would like that for our QB position in 2014!

This would be a good signing hope it happens quickly!
jmho

Quote:

I wonder............is experience in a system more important than a guy who can't take care of the ball?

If they brought him in as a legit #3 and to be more a coach then a player then yes.

if They brought him in as #2 or God forbid battle for #1 then hell no.

The last thing we need is some reclamation project at QB

Quote:

Rookie - Grossman, with Hoyer the projected Starter.
jmho

I'm on board with that, eo. The draftee would be our #3 guy, hopefully not having to see the field until he is ready...

Yeah, I guess at #2 AS LONG as they have drafted a rook to take the reigns.

Assuming that rook is not some 6th round talent

Quote:

...or God forbid battle for #1 then hell no.

Ah geez, no...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

...JC...

First, the source for this info is Jason LaCanfora and it based on pure speculation.

If the Browns would sign Grossman, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Having an experienced veteran helps to provide leadership that can help to teach the younger QBs...it would be a plus for the Browns.

I would view it as a good move by the Browns front office.

Hell, why not sign Sanchez if that's the criteria? He's younger and if you could make it work, he could be the answer long-term. Grossman won't be pushing Hoyer for anything, not even locker position.

Go back to bed dude.

Grossman is PERFECT for Hoyer and anyone else we bring in (Bridgewater, Carr, Garrop, Mettenberger).

The dude's been with Shanahan since 2009 running his offense.

You don't think that helps? Of course you don't. Your QB eye is off the charts on the negative side.

I'm only looking at it from a perspective of how he would help the Browns.

1. How does he push Hoyer? Does Grossman have a legit shot of winning the starting job?

2. If he doesn't win the starting job and Hoyer goes out with an injury, could he lead the team? Or, is he just another in the carousel of diminished-skills QBs looking for a final paycheck before retirement from the NFL?

3. What does he really bring to the table?

4. What could Hoyer learn from him?

Seriously, I think you folks are willing just to take just about any aging QB and plug them in to fill a roster spot. I've got news for you and it may come as a shock to some of you. That doesn't make the team or the QB position any better.

Quote:

The scenario I see playing out...
1. The starting job is Hoyer's to lose
2. A veteran to help teach the other QBs as our backup...Grossman fits that role better than anyone, IMO.
3. Browns draft a QB who will be sitting, learning the new offense, with no pressure to start.

And these are the flaws in how you see things.

1. The starting job should be open for any QB on the roster to win.
2. If it's Hoyer's to lose, what can Grossman really teach Hoyer about playing QB that Hoyer hasn't already learned?

The only point I partially agree with is #3. Even a drafted QB should be in the mix to win the starting QB job.

My Lord, with fans like you folks, it's no wonder the Browns suck year-after-year-after-year! I'm almost ashamed to be lumped together with you. Let's not start a

, but I shake my head at some of you folks.

Quote:

People say "yeah but he knows Shanahan's offense.", and I think, come on, what are we talking about here, Chinese Algebra? Pro QBs are bright individuals, with certain notable exceptions (#3), and should be able to pick up any offense pretty quickly without some veteran mentor being kept around for that reason alone.

This is exactly right, including everything about the player that wore #3 for the Browns last season.

Quote:

Quote:

I wonder............is experience in a system more important than a guy who can't take care of the ball?

If they brought him in as a legit #3 and to be more a coach then a player then yes.

if They brought him in as #2 or God forbid battle for #1 then hell no.

The last thing we need is some reclamation project at QB

You see, this is the problem that I have. It seems that Browns fans have become accustomed to keeping less-than-adequate players on the roster as 'depth' or even as starting players.

If the guy you bring in won't actually be expected to battle for the starting job, I want nothing to do with them. It isn't like we have a lot of players that have established themselves at the position. I'm one of Hoyer's biggest fans on this message board, but I want him to be pushed to be better. I don't want him going into the season with the feeling that he's got the starting job sown up. I want him to work to establish himself. If he can't then we go with someone else.

I hate to be redundant, but we know that the backup QB is going to see the field this year. We need him to be a guy that gives us the chance to win those games, unless 2014 is going to be yet another throwaway season. I expect no less than 7 wins this year, am hopeful we can win 9 games, and Grossman's body of work does not suggest that he is even adequate as a starter or a backup.

Quote:

We have to assume that Hoyer will get dinged at some point and miss a game or two - history tells us that. When that happens, I am not thrilled that the next man up will be Rex Grossman. That feels a lot like watching #3 take the field last year.

I'd rather kick the tires on guys like Sanchez, Matt Flynn, Kevin Kolb, or Shaun Hill. Heck, I might rather watch Colt McCoy as a backup than Rex Grossman. People say "yeah but he knows Shanahan's offense.", and I think, come on, what are we talking about here, Chinese Algebra? Pro QBs are bright individuals, with certain notable exceptions (#3), and should be able to pick up any offense pretty quickly without some veteran mentor being kept around for that reason alone.

Okay, we can bring back McCoy but dad has to stay home.

Quote:

I hate to be redundant, but we know that the backup QB is going to see the field this year. We need him to be a guy that gives us the chance to win those games, unless 2014 is going to be yet another throwaway season. I expect no less than 7 wins this year, am hopeful we can win 9 games, and Grossman's body of work does not suggest that he is even adequate as a starter or a backup.

I can't really deny that the Browns M.O. has been to have the backup (and unfortunately, the 3rd stringer) starting games for us. My hope is that this won't be the case this year and I don't think we should look at it in that way. We should expect that the Browns starting QB will start all 16 regular season games.

It was folks like Holmgren & Co. that thought that 'starting over' was the way to go and that brought with it the 'throwaway season' dialogue. Unfortunately, it has stuck around. That's the linguistic culture that has to be eviscerated from the lexicon.

I'm expecting that the team will make the playoffs. It's what we should all be expecting. I don't want to see incremental improvement in the number of wins. We should be able to make the playoffs THIS year, not next year or two years from now. Incremental win totals are what we might get, but it shouldn't be what we expect.

In regards to Grossman, I agree. He won't be an adequate starter or back-up. If the team expects that Hoyer is in the mix for the starting job (no, he shouldn't have the job handed to him) then his back-up should be expected to have AT LEAST as much ability as he does. That isn't Rex Grossman.

2. If it's Hoyer's to lose, what can Grossman really teach Hoyer about playing QB that Hoyer hasn't already learned?

Got to side with Mac here n disagree with you and Dave.

There are so many things involved with learning a new offense... Timing, reads, teaching the WRs - improvising and how bout we do it this way due to the individual personnel of our team.

Having a 10 year veteran who is familiar with the playbook and the LANGUAGE...we don't want Hoyer to know it...we want him to execute it. And you both seem to totally ignore the fact that its not just HOYER that has to learn it. The WRs. the OL the RBs all have to get in sync.

Yes we have a coaches. But after the meetings and the players are by themselves and go and view film of the days practice...do you not understand how important it is having a Grossman there to help Hoyer and the rookie and the WRs even on how to execute it better.

Its all about having a finished product at its best GAME 1. For you to state what can he teach HOYER...sorry but from that statement and thought process alone had you at a loss for this discussion. Again I don't say these thing to be arrogant or anything but you actually believe this or you wouldn't state it. Just hoping to correct the thought process. Hopefully you won't take this as an insult. If you wish to not keep an open mind to it. Trust me it won't offend me at all. That would be your choice. Thanks for the discussion.

Quote:

j/c...

He was the expected veteran BACK UP signing about a month ago when Kyle took over as the OC. So this rumor/whatever it is - does not come as a surprise. It makes more sense than Schaub rumors that were abound.

He knows the Offense. He knows the NFL. At this stage of his career he has accepted a veteran backup role and can help a young QB as well as WRs get acclimated with the new Offense.

This signing would not change any plans regarding the draft and the QB position. It is to fill a back up void by our release of Weeden and Campbell. Which leaves one more hole to fill - and I expect it to be done from the draft!

Rookie - Grossman, with Hoyer the projected Starter. I would like that for our QB position in 2014!

This would be a good signing hope it happens quickly!
jmho

Hopefully this signing would lean more toward Offense Instructor for Hoyer and the new guy more than backup. That would put Shanahan's scheme on the fast track and not cause a $10 million hit to the cap.

I have a problem picking up any guy you wouldn't want on the field. I mean generally. I do understand taking a guy that has experience in the system we intend to run. I can see that having merit.

As a 3rd stringer, we could do a lot worse *See: Bruce Gradkowski.*

It's pretty clear that it's going to be Hoyer, Rookie, and Grossman.

J/C

A good pickup. Fit's in well with the plans. Plus he knows how to deal with hostile homies like we have in Clev.

Quote:

Our third string QB almost always sees the field.

Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it should continue going forward.

Quote:

Quote:

Our third string QB almost always sees the field.

Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it should continue going forward.

Some day I hope we can become a team that doesn't even care about the backup QB.

Colts, Saints.. Teams with Franchise QBs, rarely ever put stock in their backup, because they KNOW their QB will be there..

The Pats are a team that values a backup as a future trade piece because they KNOW Brady will be there (when BKP isn't around)

We shouldn't care, or even have a 3rd QB... And the backup should be a guy that never sees the field...

Some day.

Quote:

The Pats are a team that values a backup as a future trade piece because they KNOW Brady will be there (when BKP isn't around)

I don't know if this is true. They traded Cassel because Brady was coming back and they didn't want to let him go for nothing. They straight up cut Hoyer and are pretty much refusing to trade Mallett (who will be unrestricted after this season).

I think they just got lucky with Cassel and got what they could for him.

Quote:

Got to side with Mac here n disagree with you and Dave.

Okay.

Quote:

There are so many things involved with learning a new offense... Timing, reads, teaching the WRs - improvising and how bout we do it this way due to the individual personnel of our team.

Having a 10 year veteran who is familiar with the playbook and the LANGUAGE...we don't want Hoyer to know it...we want him to execute it. And you both seem to totally ignore the fact that its not just HOYER that has to learn it. The WRs. the OL the RBs all have to get in sync.

I'm not saying that there are. As for the other players that have to be in sync, that's what the coaches are there to do. The WRs coaches are to get the WRs on the same page. The RBs coach is supposed to get the RBs on the same page. So on and so forth. It'll be Shanahan's job to makes sure they're all coordinated.

Quote:

Yes we have a coaches. But after the meetings and the players are by themselves and go and view film of the days practice...do you not understand how important it is having a Grossman there to help Hoyer and the rookie and the WRs even on how to execute it better.

I don't think that Hoyer would need Grossman's help. You do. I don't even think we need to bring Grossman in for any reason unless you want to add him to the coaching staff as the asst. QBs coach or something. But he shouldn't be taking up a roster spot.

Quote:

Its all about having a finished product at its best GAME 1. For you to state what can he teach HOYER...sorry but from that statement and thought process alone had you at a loss for this discussion. Again I don't say these thing to be arrogant or anything but you actually believe this or you wouldn't state it. Just hoping to correct the thought process. Hopefully you won't take this as an insult. If you wish to not keep an open mind to it. Trust me it won't offend me at all. That would be your choice. Thanks for the discussion.

Okay. If Grossman is brought in to 'tutor' Hoyer, that's a black mark on the front office in my view. Fact is, Hoyer doesn't need Grossman's help and Grossman can't unseat Hoyer for the starting job. He simply wouldn't be a competition. Tanney would provide more competition for the starting job than Grossman.

j/c
Big waste of roster spot. If RG3&OUT is an expert it's in what not to do.

I am not so sure I want to push Hoyer this year. Let the drafted rookie do that next year.

Quote:

Quote:

Our third string QB almost always sees the field.

Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it should continue going forward.

What are you saying? That the odds of it NOT happening are now in our favor?

I'm sorry, but I think most of the people liking the Sexy Rexy move are people who never really followed his career.

Furthermore, I believe that him knowing Shanny's system is nice, but him being an inferior qb to JC is more important.

that's what the coaches are there to do.

I don't know how to say this without it coming out arrogant or condescending...if you knew me you wouldn't think it - but its when you say something like that I come away with the notion that you just don't understand what goes on and how every good team functions and what Leadership is all about. Especially in our case of starting a new system.

NEED...do we NEED a Grossman - no I don't think we "NEED" him but if we did sign him. I understand why and it only can benefit us. But If you run an Out pattern in every system there is a different timing issue. Grossman can speed up the process of figuring that out. He can walk over to the WR and give him a pointer on getting it right in this system. It is what you expect from 10 year veterans. Sometimes you just look at a guy who in all probabilities will be the #3 QB and view him in terms of being the starter.

IF WE OR ANY TEAM IN THE NFL is down to their #3 QB to RELY ON to get into and deep Post Season play...FORGEDABOUT IT!!! you are done. I don't care what our history is... If we lose #1 and then the rookie who would jump to #2 and we are down to our #3 and the kid we pull from Practice Squad...We are done like any team in the NFL IS!!!

jmho and the reality of it all. That is when we can know that we are a good team and have some continuity...is rely on #1 to start most the games and maybe a temp game here n there from the #2.

He is a third string quarterback. You have a starter - Hoyer, a rookie to develop pick four or pick 26, Grossman unless he gets beat out by Haney.

You go to any roster that is what you get for third string a guy like Grossman. A guy who can finish a game or be an emergency starter.

He may be on a team for a year. No big deal.

We released Campbell. JC > Sexy Rexy.

We don't know if Hoyer is good or not.

We don't know if the rookie will be ready to play.

Not sure why so many people are okay w/this?

Quote:

We released Campbell. JC > Sexy Rexy.

We don't know if Hoyer is good or not.

We don't know if the rookie will be ready to play.

Not sure why so many people are okay w/this?

This is exactly why I was hoping to get Schaub.

I'm certainly not approving Grossman, but it's a pretty normal progression. So if this FO is wrong to do it, so have a great number of others.

Many times we've seen, not only here, but around the league, how new coaching staffs bring in QB's that know their system to help with the transition to their schemes.

And I would have to agree that once you get to your 3rd QB on the depth chart, you're toast anyway. It's not like your 3rd string QB is going to save you.

I never really cared for the idea of bringing such a QB in that provided little on the field before. I will say with the new bargaining agreement, coaches allotted time working with players has changed my thinking about that somewhat.

Quote:

Quote:

We released Campbell. JC > Sexy Rexy.

We don't know if Hoyer is good or not.

We don't know if the rookie will be ready to play.

Not sure why so many people are okay w/this?

This is exactly why I was hoping to get Schaub.

The problem with that is, unless it's your plan to start Shaub and let Hoyer and the rookie play behind him, you don't pay 10+ mil. for a back up QB.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We released Campbell. JC > Sexy Rexy.

We don't know if Hoyer is good or not.

We don't know if the rookie will be ready to play.

Not sure why so many people are okay w/this?

This is exactly why I was hoping to get Schaub.

The problem with that is, unless it's your plan to start Shaub and let Hoyer and the rookie play behind him, you don't pay 10+ mil. for a back up QB.

I think Schaub would have beat Hoyer out in a true competition. I look at last season for him as an anomaly at this point until proven otherwise.

Quote:

We released Campbell. JC > Sexy Rexy.

We don't know if Hoyer is good or not.

We don't know if the rookie will be ready to play.

Not sure why so many people are okay w/this?

vers, you and I typically agree, but we're in different camps on this issue.

I do not think that jc > sexy rexy.

Campbell plays just well enough to lose and that has been his MO during his NFL career.

Grossman knows Shanahan's system and has taken a team to the SB.

Neither player is a starter; I think we do agree on that.

Here's hoping that Hoyer is the MAN in 2014!

j/c

Didn't Shaub have a 10 mil cap hit?

Quote:

I never really cared for the idea of bringing such a QB in that provided little on the field before. I will say with the new bargaining agreement, coaches allotted time working with players has changed my thinking about that somewhat.

A good point that I had not considered, but I do recall catching some flak when I criticized Seneca Wallace for refusing to help Colt McCoy's developement. Back then, people said "players play, coaches coach.".

jc:

Jason Campbell sucks a starter and #2 option.
Rex Grossman sucks as a starter and #2 option.

The difference is we won't pay the latter $3M to suck and be a #2QB in 2014...and oddly enough we paid close to that for Campbell to the #3QB after Hoyer leap frogged him.

If Grossman becomes the #2QB then we have some problems. I don't think that is the plan.

Moving on......

Quote:

jc:

Jason Campbell sucks a starter and #2 option.
Rex Grossman sucks as a starter and #2 option.

The difference is we won't pay the latter $3M to suck and be a #2QB in 2014...

Pretty much how I see the matter...

+ 1

Quote:

I am not so sure I want to push Hoyer this year. Let the drafted rookie do that next year.

I want the best player to be the QB of the Browns. It'll be great if that's Hoyer. If it's a drafted player, that's fantastic! But I want them all to be working hard to be the starter. I don't want ANY of them to be thinking that they're just here in case something happens to one of their teammates. I want them to strive, every week, to get that brass ring and whoever has it to fight off all comers to keep it.

We actually agree on something!

Quote:

I don't know how to say this without it coming out arrogant or condescending...if you knew me you wouldn't think it - but its when you say something like that I come away with the notion that you just don't understand what goes on and how every good team functions and what Leadership is all about. Especially in our case of starting a new system.

NEED...do we NEED a Grossman - no I don't think we "NEED" him but if we did sign him. I understand why and it only can benefit us. But If you run an Out pattern in every system there is a different timing issue. Grossman can speed up the process of figuring that out. He can walk over to the WR and give him a pointer on getting it right in this system. It is what you expect from 10 year veterans. Sometimes you just look at a guy who in all probabilities will be the #3 QB and view him in terms of being the starter.

IF WE OR ANY TEAM IN THE NFL is down to their #3 QB to RELY ON to get into and deep Post Season play...FORGEDABOUT IT!!! you are done. I don't care what our history is... If we lose #1 and then the rookie who would jump to #2 and we are down to our #3 and the kid we pull from Practice Squad...We are done like any team in the NFL IS!!!

jmho and the reality of it all. That is when we can know that we are a good team and have some continuity...is rely on #1 to start most the games and maybe a temp game here n there from the #2.

I can only give a deserving response to what you wrote. I do it with all sincerity.

Whatever.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Our third string QB almost always sees the field.

Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it should continue going forward.

What are you saying? That the odds of it NOT happening are now in our favor?

I'm sorry, but I think most of the people liking the Sexy Rexy move are people who never really followed his career.

Furthermore, I believe that him knowing Shanny's system is nice, but him being an inferior qb to JC is more important.

Inferior to JC

What team did JC help go to a SB?

Grossman fits in here better then any other veteran QB available. People that dislike this move never really followed Rex's career and are probably only looking at stats, not the actual games.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ss..._special-report

Hey Mary Kay: Will the Browns sign quarterback Rex Grossman now that Matt Schaub has been traded to the Raiders?

-- Steve C., Cleveland, Ohio

Hey Steve: Browns offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan coached Grossman in Houston and Washington, and likes him, but no visit is currently planned. I think the Browns were disappointed that the Raiders traded for Schaub (for a sixth-round pick). I believe they would've signed him -- or tried -- had he been released. Schaub has a $10 million base salary for 2014, so they probably didn't believe a trade would happen.

I am saying that if you are planning for your third string QB to play, then you have the wrong mindset.

Campbell is definitely better than Grossman. Grossman is also much cheaper.

Quote:

I am saying that if you are planning for your third string QB to play, then you have the wrong mindset.

Campbell is definitely better than Grossman. Grossman is also much cheaper.

I agree. If you gameplan for them to play, you are a loser coach. You gameplan for them to help the team....and a good coach knows a good teammate doesn't always help on the field. He helps elsewhere.

Just saying

So, is (gulp) Mark Sanchez plan B to Grossman?

If they can't out play Campbell, I'd pass.

Quote:

Quote:

I am saying that if you are planning for your third string QB to play, then you have the wrong mindset.

Campbell is definitely better than Grossman. Grossman is also much cheaper.

I agree. If you gameplan for them to play, you are a loser coach. You gameplan for them to help the team....and a good coach knows a good teammate doesn't always help on the field. He helps elsewhere.

Just saying

No offense to either of you, even though it may sound offensive.

But, I think it is stupid to not have the best players you can on your team. I really see no reason to downgrade the talent just because you hope that guy will never see the field.

In fact, that sounds so incredibly ignorant, that I can't believe it is even an argument.

Grossman is worse than Campbell. He is also much cheaper.

Yes, he is.

So, are you saying that is why we should have cut JC and why we should sign Sexy Rexy?

Look man, I'm telling you..............I followed this guy's career and you aren't going to like this guy once you see him play. Did you see that spoof that one poster posted on page 1? That is Sexy Rexy. He doesn't take care of the ball. He is a turnover machine.

I know exactly how bad he is. He is a third string QB. If he was any good he wouldn't be a third string QB.

Hopefully he wouldn't have to play.

It keeps coming back to that. Sorry, but that is a poor argument. JC is a better qb than him.

It shows the sorry state of our team that that is a poor argument to you.

Most third string QBs never have to see the field and don't even dress on game day.

Okay, I am glad you are good w/the move.

We'll see how you feel about it in November. Of course, you will never remember this debate, right?

Quote:

Okay, I am glad you are good w/the move.

We'll see how you feel about it in November. Of course, you will never remember this debate, right?

No, I'm not picking on you. Well, maybe. lol.

Pit nailed it with the CBA. More panzy-ass protection of players and time alotted for practices.

It's NOT common for teams to get down to their 3rd string QB playing any significant time.

WE did it because Weeden BLOWS, Hoyer don't have a clue how to slide, and Campbell was forced upon us because of 1 and 2.

Grossman is PERFECT for this team for 1 or 2 years. And with Bridgewater and Hoyer in the fold, we won't ever see Grossman on any field.

I can only give a deserving response to what you wrote. I do it with all sincerity.

I know you do and thank you - just didn't know how to respond without offending as it was not my purpose. apologies.

Couple of thoughts.

1 - I think that you put the players on your team that make your team the best. Thay may not necessarily be the most talented player.

Player A average/slightly below average talent
Player B slightly below
Player A late for meeting and practices then doesn't pay attention and is disruptive.
Player B hard working, leads by example, inspires others to work harder. Makes others better.

(Typing this out I realized that a great example of Player B is Giambi with the Tribe)

Now if Player A has superstar talent then you end up keeping player A. But if the talent is close you keep player B.

2 - This concept plays into the draft with a guy like Khalil Mack.

Very talented player, improves your team. But would someone else make the team better than he would because of our depth at OLB? If talent is close to the same then a Qb, Wr, olineman might make the team better than Mack would. However, if you think that Mack has superstar talent that far exceeds the others then you take Mack. You don't pass up a transcendent player because you have depth at that position. (I am not saying Mack is a transcendent player but if the FO thinks that he could be then you take him regardless of Mingo, Kruger and Sheard).

3 - JC vs Rex

You can argue that JC is better talent wise. In my opinion they are very close and I can see people arguing that Rex is better. Let's say JC is better. He isn't that much better. We aren't talking Drew Brees vs Rex Grossman here. It's Jason Freakin' Campbell.

If we can get Grossman for less money (allows of to use that on other players - even if not this year) and he can make the locker room better and help Hoyer and the other Qb's learn the playbook faster and become more proficient at it...why the heck would you want JC?

4 - Vers - I will give you that the argument that he won't play is a bogus one. And we may not be able to win many games with Grossman playing. But we also aren't going to win games with JC at QB either. Fact of the matter is, with the economics of the NFL today, you cannot afford to keep a 3rd string Qb that you know you can win with. Would I like to have Peyton Manning as my starting Qb, Drew Brees as the #2 and Aaron Rodgers as our #3 Qb? Heck yea. But you cannot afford to keep 3 starter quality Qb's because of salary cap issues.

If Grossman is added he will be no more than a Quarterbacks coach and Offensive Quality Control coach.

J/c...

Why would we want a terrible QB teaching Hoyer and rookie anything? What's he going to teach them... How to be horrible?

Quote:

J/c...

Why would we want a terrible QB teaching Hoyer and rookie anything? What's he going to teach them... How to be horrible?

I only meant he is very familiar with Shanahan's offense and would be helpful with implementation. Skill wise, I agree he is not the best, but "experience" wise he could offer some coaching.

hehehe...those who can't teach...lol

I won't debate the JC vs Grossman thing cause it ain't worth it. We will not win with either at our starting QB. Most teams will not win with their #3 QB unless its a youngster nobody knows about and they become a big surprise...but in most cases those end up being a mirage. I can think of many in that realm I just don't remember their names...why do I see a Dallas star on their helmet in several???

Oh and Campbell was here and started how many games? He was 1-8 or something like that. So if Grossman is worse its like meaningless to the case cause we are talking one win in the balance here.

So its about what you want from your #3 - quality starts. I really don't see much of a difference in the quality part. But we are putting in a new system if it helps and that is important. You got a former 1st round talent who knows the system. That is on the cheap.

Now I come to two other issues and I'm pretty much done.

1. Have we signed Grossman? A lot of talk about a guy who we didn't sign or did I miss something. If we did not sign him by now I am curious if we ever will - so this discussion would have been for naught although still interesting.

2. Its takes two to tango. A lot of the names that were mentioned in the Grossman stead...forget about JC we released him and well good luck but I'm not disappointed at all. Sanchez...he will come here only to be the #1...not to mentor, not to be the 2nd guy to Hoyer. He will want the majority of the #1 reps from day one. Or he won't come here. On top of that he will want a Starting QB contract.

Now if that is what we would want him for - to be our starter and Hoyer our Backup and the mid-round developmental rookie to fight it out with Tanney for the #3 spot or practice squad. Ok then it would make sense. I think we have a plan in place. Hoyer is the starter although in pencil - he is king of the hill so to speak.

I am certain we have a guy we want and will try to get him. I don't think its Bridgewater only cause of the 1st overall pick ramifications and the cost to move up to get him - not cause we don't evaluate him high but because we can 99% assume we don't have a shot at him at #4 with 2 teams needing him ahead of us.

Grossman does make sense. He has been around, he knows the ins and outs of the offense. I think he can bring the transition in here at a more rapid pace - Hoyer is smart he will learn a lot and absorb a lot from Grossman so soon we will have two helping all out into the transition.

If not Grossman then I think we might go with youth. Put our Eggs in the Hoyer basket for at least a year. I just wish while Hoyer was out there we had a QB sitting next to the invested rook going over decision and reads.

jmho

j/c

I don't believe it has anything to do with Rex Grossman and Jason Campbell.

I think it has everything to do with Rex Grossman and Brandon Weeden.

Wasn't Weeden our third string QB at the end of last season?

I would rather have Grossman than Weeden... Grossman knows the system we are trying to implement and can give pointers to the guys and explain how the system normally works. I don't see it being a problem.

+ 1

If Grossman is brought in, I don't think it'll be under the intentions of anything but a mentor that has familiarity with the system and as an extreme/desperate last resort as depth. Some people are making out the potential signing to be like he'll come in here and compete for the starter role.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I want no part of him. My brother is a Bears fan and had to suffer through the Grossman era. I know what's headed our way if the Browns sign him. His tiny midget hands that can't hold onto the ball and turnover city. I don't care if he knows the system, I want no part of his horridness.

I just want those tiny midget hands to hold onto a Clipboard

Quote:

If Grossman is added he will be no more than a Quarterbacks coach and Offensive Quality Control coach.

No, he will be a player coach. Big difference.

Face it, if you are down to playing your 3rd QB, you are going to lose maybe 90% of those games. Just the way it is, so with that in mind, I'd rather that guy be the type of player who can make the starter better.

Some of you guys make it sound like we will be the only team to suck if the starter goes down.

Quote:

Quote:

Okay, I am glad you are good w/the move.

We'll see how you feel about it in November. Of course, you will never remember this debate, right?

No, I'm not picking on you. Well, maybe. lol.

Pit nailed it with the CBA. More panzy-ass protection of players and time alotted for practices.

It's NOT common for teams to get down to their 3rd string QB playing any significant time.

WE did it because Weeden BLOWS, Hoyer don't have a clue how to slide, and Campbell was forced upon us because of 1 and 2.

Grossman is PERFECT for this team for 1 or 2 years. And with Bridgewater and Hoyer in the fold, we won't ever see Grossman on any field.

Where did you get the notion that I thought you were picking on me?

That's pretty weird, man. Hmmmm...........it is also revealing. LOL

Nice post, Jester. You used sound logic. We probably disagree on how good JC and Rexy are, but I like how you logically formulated your response.

Quote:

J/c...

Why would we want a terrible QB teaching Hoyer and rookie anything? What's he going to teach them... How to be horrible?

Finally............someone who sees what I see.

I posted excerpts from articles earlier in this thread. I posted Sexy Rexy's own quote. Another poster posted a funny article about Rex. Did it get deleted? For those of you who read it, consider this--------------while it was fictional, it was certainly based on the truth.

The guy doesn't take care of the ball. He throws more picks than TDs. He does so because of that gunslinger mentality. He says..........to hell w/going through the progressions. I am going to make the GREAT throw. I am Sexy Rexy. That is why so many people absolutely despised him wherever he played.

Additionally, another poster brought up his hand size. Sexy also fumbles the ball a lot. Not just a bit, but a lot.

Why do we want to bring him in again? Do you really want Sexy Rexy mentoring our rookie QB? Seriously?

Now, w/that said..............there is no proof that we will bring him in. I, for one, will applaud Farmer and Pettine if they do NOT bring him in.

Sometimes those who cannot play well teach better. Maybe Grossman is one of those. I have turned the corner and do not want Grossman. If we think he is a great coach, hire him as a coach.

There is a lot of truth in that statement. Heck, it's absolutely true. They played not because they were superior physical athletes, but because they understood the game and played w/great effort.

I don't think Rex is one of those guys, but I could be wrong.

Quote:

I don't think Rex is one of those guys, but I could be wrong.

I'm betting Kyle Shanahan would know better than us. While it would be a waste of a roster spot at least Grossman would be a positive influence.

While I don't want Grossman, it wouldn't be the worst thing if we signed him (the worst thing would be if we signed him to start).

I get that.

I know I am going to be in the minority here, but I am going to defend my boy, Toad.

JC was not nearly as bad as most make him out to be. Yes, he had bad games. However, he also had some stellar games. He played very good football against teams like New England, Baltimore, and KC. His QB Rating was over 100 in each of those games.

I can't believe that people think Rex is better than him. That's lame. JC would have been fine as our 3rd QB.

No one think Grossman is better than Campbell. We just had to cut Campbell because he was due to make too much for a third QB.

Alright, but I disagree w/that line of thinking.

QB is the most important position on the field. Some say that it is the most important person in the entire organization.

We almost always play our 3rd qb. I know that doesn't mean we have to, but if there is one position I would spend on, it would be QB. We have plenty of cap room. We would not have to sign JC to a long term contract. A year. That's it.

I would have kept him.

yeah if Rex was on their radar I would have kept JC also.

I get the he knows the scheme thing, but as someone noted in this thread, they are pros they ought to be able to suss the system

JC played great in some games. Truly outstanding. He played well below par in some games. Did I think his play on the field warranted being a back up or 3rd string QB on the team. Absolutely.

At what price? I don't know what he was due to earn. I can't imagine it was a punitively high cap hit.

A bigger issue to me was his heart/desire/leadership - I could be wrong but it didn't look like he was really into it when the team struggled and times were tough. Whether it was from getting hit and beat up or from the team just struggling to fire - he never seemed to want to try and strap the team on his back and carry them by force of will - guts - determination - never giving in....... I don't think that sort of attitude is going to have a place on Pattine's team. And I am glad if thats the case.

Quote:

A bigger issue to me was his heart/desire/leadership

Others have brought that up and it is a legit point.