In order to avoid being redundant, I encourage everyone to head on over to emily's post from a few days ago titled "Delhomme? Wallace? McCoy?" Her article does a great job breaking down the basic question that represents Eric Mangini's biggest and toughest decision of the season: who should he start at quarterback coming out of the bye week?
Based on the results of her poll, which favor Colt McCoy by an overwhelming 84%, it seems clear that the majority of Cleveland Browns fans want the rookie to take over the job permanently. In the eyes of many fans, I'm sure the decision seems like a very easy one for Mangini: McCoy didn't look terrible against two of the league's best teams, and he is potentially the team's "quarterback of the future." I use that quote loosely, because it has been used so many times since 1999, and yet the Browns are still trying to find the guy to be their franchise quarterback.
I definitely understand the logic behind fans wanting to start McCoy, and if he starts the rest of the way, it's not like I'm going to be grimacing at the fact that we left two veteran quarterbacks on the bench. With that said, the decision still ultimately comes down to what Mangini decides, and assuming all three quarterbacks are healthy, my gut tells me he is going to call upon one of the veteran quarterbacks to get the start. In particular, I think Jake Delhomme is going to get the start. Here are a few reasons why, and excuse me if I sound like a broken record (I know I've brought some of these points up before):
The one thing against Mangini right now is that I think a lot of fans are extremely opposed to starting Delhomme, based on how Wallace and McCoy played in their starts. If Delhomme struggles even slightly at home, with two home games coming up, I think the fans are going to try to boo him out of the stadium and call for one of the other two guys.
With the decision comes a commitment though, especially since Mangini will have had two weeks to make his decision. Before the bye week, Mangini definitely had a legitimate excuse for going through three quarterbacks: the first two succumbed to injuries. After the bye week, an easy way to lose the locker room is to ask the team to believe in one quarterback, only to suddenly change your mind and go with another.
The Browns have shown to be a very competitive football team, and right now their record stands at 2-5. We have two more games left on the "rough" portion of our schedule, and both of them are at home. After beating the Saints on the road though, I think this team has the confidence they need to come away with a victory in at least one of those games. After that, the Browns' next four opponents have a combined record of 7-18. It is arguably one of the easiest looking schedules you can have. Then, Cleveland closes the year with three consecutive division games. What if Cleveland finds themselves having a 7-6 record heading into those games?
McCoy did a great job when called upon the past two weeks, but it's not like he ran away with the job and became a Pro Bowler. As long as this football team still has a chance to compete for the postseason, I think Mangini is going to go with the guy who he thinks gives him the best chance to win right now. If that was Delhomme to begin the season, and if it was supposed to be Delhomme once his ankle healed the first time around, then why wouldn't it be him once it heals this time around?
0 recs | 142 comments
Seneca has also said he thinks he’s earned the job.
So uh – oh.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
I’m happy he has that confidence. I didn’t state it in the article above, but while I think Delhomme will get the start, I think Wallace did play well enough to earn the starting role. Him missing the past two weeks, plus the bye week, throws in the wrinkle for Mangini to evaluate from square one as opposed to just “riding the hot hand.”
Chris Pokorny - October 28, 2010
I’m not sure I’d agree with Wallace playing well enough to earn the starting position. I think he had to play obviously better than Delhomme to take the starting spot. I’d say Seneca played better than Delhomme in some ways and worse in others. It really seems to me as if neither is a significant upgrade over the other. In that case I’d have to say that the starting job needs to stay with Delhomme until he proves himself to be truly washed up (like it seemed last year) or he gets injured again. I think the coaches must have had a reason for naming Delhomme the starter in the first place and I don’t think Wallace has done anything amazing enough to take the job for himself.
As far as McCoy goes, I think he shows a lot f promise for a rookie but I’m not convinced he gives us the best chance to win. As long as there is a chance, as slim as it might be, for the playoffs, I don’t think it is wise to go with McCoy. If we lose 2 or 3 more games, however, I think McCoy should play out the rest of the season so we know where we are at with him. If he develops into a decent QB, then we won’t have to spend our first pick on a QB. That would be the best case scenario going into next year.
I think this is an extremely important choice for Mangini with respect to his future with the Browns. This could make or break the season. It will be very interesting to see what he does.
Brownsyup - October 28, 2010
I agree with all this
DPS - October 28, 2010
This is where I am.
rufio - October 28, 2010
I’m a bit leery of the quote (Seneca’s) that I read without seeing the question that Grossi asked. In general, though, I would expect any QB on the roster if asked whether he thought he had played well enough to be a starter to reply in the affirmative. If the dude says, “Yeah, I played pretty well, but probably not better than Jake and Colt,” he is definitely not going to be starting.
JustBob - October 28, 2010
While the best decision would probably be Delhomme, he helmet just annoys the crap out of me.
Instead of having padding throughout, you can see his earpads real easily and it looks old and not flush and then his facemask has the overhead one bar setup and that also just looks old and crappy when matched with his two bar facemask. But that’s just being nitpicky.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
And to add while McCoy’s earpads are also isolated, Delhomme’s just make his helmet look a whole lot worse, idk. It’s like watching Eli Manning play, his helmet just annoys me because it does not work.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
I love old style helmets, as long as concussions aren’t a problem.
notthatnoise - October 28, 2010
I think the Ion’s edges look mean and futuristic. The Speed looks like it’s barley a helmet at all. I hate the Revo’s curves and the Schutt version Cribbs and Eli wear are okay but Eli looks weird with it on.
The old sets are fine (all of them are wearing one obviously) But the facemask and visible padding usually make or break the helmet for me (barring concussion prevention of course)
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
While I agree with much of what Chris is saying, I see it something like this.
Delhomme was great in preseason, average in his opening game, but really sucked against Atlanta. I don’t care if his ankle was hurt or not. If your hurt and you can’t play, then don’t. I don’t want to hear about the ankle as an excuse for sucking on the field. If your a team guy (which he is) then don’t play because your hurting the team if you can’t perform.
Wallace has played fairly well in his games before getting hurt. He is nowhere near as accurate as McCoy or Delhomme on long balls, however he is more versatile and brings a different threat to the opposing D. While he hasn’t performed poorly per say, he hasn’t wowed me either. He often reads too slow, has a tendency to run out of bounds for losses, and as stated above is not as accurate on deep balls. He doesn’t seem to see the field as quickly as the other two QB’s, IMO.
McCoy has played fairly well also in his two games. His two interception did not seem to be terrible decisions on his part, but they are still INTS. He has played smart, seems in control, and has stated that he is “seeing” the opposing D coverage play out as he is warming up to the NFL. While not proven, he has shown in his limited starts that he can play, and play pretty well.
I think when you look at all the above, IMO, McCoy gets the start for the remainder of the season. I don’t think we are losing much of anything playing any of these three. So why not start the rookie and see if he is the real deal or not. If he managed a game to beat the Saints, why couldn’t he be the best option to win? However, my opinion is worth squat and my gut also tells me that Delhomme will start. I hope not though.
Kimble_79 - October 28, 2010
I think if Delhomme is healthy he should start, thats what they brought him in for and thats what they are paying him for. Wallace has been a career backup for reasons listed above. He’s a good backup, but he’s not the future, and he’s not the present. McCoy should start over Wallace, although he prolly remains third on the depth chart.
iwearmocs - October 28, 2010
Delhomme was asked to give it a go while hurt. He gave it a go. They clearly didn’t want to play Colt, which was our only other option. I can’t blame him for trying to play while hurt. He probably won’t use it as an excuse but anyone can see it was hampering him.
rufio - October 28, 2010
I’m also in favor of starting Colt; however, aside from a great defensive showing, Colt didn’t manage the game to beat the Saints. David Bowens’ 2 TDs beat the Saints. Using the Saints victory as a feather in Colt’s cap seems wrong to me.
But the other stuff, like him “seeing” the defense, and playing with confidence, and looking like he’s in control are all very good reasons to start him.
Dawg Nuts - October 29, 2010
What I mean by “managed” more than anything else is simply playing smart football. He didn’t force passes and didn’t turn the ball over. Not that he won the game for us. Sorry for any confusion.
Kimble_79 - October 29, 2010
fair enough. to your point, had jake tossed an early pick six , the whole complexion of the game could have changed.
Dawg Nuts - October 29, 2010
Fixed. Seems like few things are inevitable, except death, taxes and Jake Delhomme and/or Seneca Wallace throwing a pick six.
woodsmeister - October 29, 2010
But it is very easy to do this when your defense essentially outscores the other team’s offense.
We could play it so conservatively because of the context of the game. I could not turn the ball over in the NFL if I just took kneeldowns all day. When Jake and Seneca have thrown those bad INTs, they’ve been asked to play a much larger role in the offense than Colt played against the Saints. Yes, it is a positive that he didn’t mess up, but messing up in that situation would be historically poor play. Even for us.
He didn’t have to even think about forcing passes because we didn’t need to pass the ball and we never really needed key first downs or scores.
rufio - October 30, 2010
Not to be redundant, but I agree with ChrisPo re: Seneca Wallace’s comments.
Not to sound like a broken record, but as I’ve said in various game-threads, we haven’t really seen a healthy Jake Delhomme since the first two quarters of Week One. And, of course, his last “healthy” throw was a terrible one and ultimately helped lead to our loss against TB.
Without stating my personal preference, I’d agree that Mangini is most likely to go with Jake if he and Seneca (and obviously Colt) are healthy for Week 9. Honestly, I wouldn’t have a problem whichever way he went. I just hope he makes a decision and says “He is our starting QB and that’s final.” I’m just sick of the constant QB drama.
DisplacedBuckeye - October 28, 2010
I’m going to start working on a stat comparison from ‘09 to ’10 so far. I’ll let you guys know when its up.
Kimble_79 - October 28, 2010
I’ve finished a fanpost called “By the Numbers”. It has comparable stats from ’09 to ’10 to date. Check it out if your interested.
Kimble_79 - October 28, 2010
On the one hand, if Jake is healthy then it would make all kinds of sense to start him, if for no other reason than he has LOADS of in-game experience, and when he has been healthy, for the most part, he has looked better than the other two. Plus- He makes for a pretty darn expensive bench warmer.
On the other hand- We’ve seen Colt McCoy can manage the game, and so far he hasn’t made all that many mistakes. We’ve seen an entire season of Jake Delhomme making mistakes while having a lot more talent around him than he has now. I’ve heard it said that to win with the talent we have, we need to play pretty near mistake-free football. Out of the two, I think McCoy has shown that he gives us the best chance at playing mistake-free football.
As far as Wallace goes, other than the fact that he has more in-game experience, I don’t think he has a very overwhelming advantage over McCoy. McCoy is young; Wallace is what, 31? Wallace is a good backup; McCoy is a rookie who has potential to be a starter.
I still want to see McCoy starting.
shep615 - October 28, 2010
I will be happy with either Jake or Colt. I will not be happy with Seneca. Not because I think he sucks (which I do), but because I see him as a pretty similar player to Colt. I just don’t think he would be an upgrade over what we’ve seen the past two games. Delhomme has a chance to be an upgrade, and McCoy could use the experience, so I can see starting either of them.
notthatnoise - October 28, 2010
Seneca=McCoy minus the stupid ability to lose yardage running out of bounds.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
I think you have that backwards.
TheDriveStillHurts - October 28, 2010
McCoy minus the stupid ability to lose yardage running out of bounds=Seneca
9James - October 28, 2010
OK, I’ll bite.
That is clearly what he meant to say.
TheDriveStillHurts - October 28, 2010
Ah, indeed.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
Well played sir
9James - October 28, 2010
/still wants Colt to start
I have a feeling it’ll be Delhomme though…
emily522 - October 28, 2010
I thought it was brilliant that Colt McCoy got to start as a rookie. It´s obvious to me, that if kept loose and limber in and out of the pocket and encouraged to try things and practice his whole arsenal of throws, we may indeed have a franchise quarterback by the time the season ends. The Delhomme acquisition always seemed like we were getting a washed out quarterback on the decline for what they assumed would be a losing season. Seneca Wallace was Holmgren´s backup in Seattle, he kept Hasselbeck on the field and David Greene of Georgia on the bench. All in all it looks like it´s Holmgren´s machinations, I actually think that Colt McCoy is the thorn in his side at this point, if he has any ambitions of becoming the head coach. Personally, I´ve been a Mangini supporter, even if his stubborness can drive men crazy.
mooncamping - October 28, 2010
9James - October 28, 2010
JD is by far the most knowledgeable qb of the group. He recognizes all of the defensive schemes and reacts properly. It’s a huge advantage. His downside is that occasional desperation toss that can derail a drive or the game. Wallace is a serviceable backup and should be used if JD goes down or suffers from too many desperation moments. Colt needs to return to his roll as student and and 3rd stringer. This is as much about protecting Colt from injury that might result from a lack of experience, as it is to maximize this team’s potential. If JD fails, we fail and I can live with that. I cannot live with an unnecessary injury to Colt.
elsandito - October 28, 2010
First, I’m glad it’s not my decision….
My initial thought is to start McCoy to evaluate what you have there. I hadn’t thought of a few of the points here though (most notably evaluating the receivers).
I guess if I had a gun to my head, I would go with a healthy Delhomme as long as the playoffs are a possibility, but once they’re out of the picture, maybe switch to McCoy to see how he does.
CraigD - October 28, 2010
So, since we have such a bad WR corps, would the outlandish trade )that would probably never happen but would be awesome if it did) of Julian Edelman be a good move?
This may just be my KSU bias showing but we’d have two KSU QBs turned WR on our team. That’d be pretty sweet.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
Edelman is not a very good receiver anywhere but NE
notthatnoise - October 28, 2010
It’s his second year bro and in his rookie season he was an awesome 3rd option.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
i think your KSU bias is obstructing your view here.
DontCallMeJoey - October 28, 2010
Or maybe your bias against KSU players is showing? I mean for Cribbs to emerge from KSU as a Pro is great but the fact that Edelman can emerge and be just as great if given the opportunity is amazing, no?
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
Why in the heck would he have a bias against KSU players?
Buckeye Brad - October 28, 2010
yeah, i’m not sure why you would assume i’m anti-KSU. i freaking love cribbs, i think jack lambert is one of the baddest bad asses in history, gates is my starting fantasy TE, and i saw my first phish show at KSU in 1994… i have much love for KSU.
my point is that edelman is no great shakes so far … 37 catches last year and 4 more this year doesn’t imply impending greatness to me, nor does it suggest that he’s the cure to what ails our wr issue. but i could be wrong.
DontCallMeJoey - October 28, 2010
Well then. I had no clue. The minute I say I go to KSU, most people give me the KSU rhyme. Oh haha, thanks jackass like I already haven’t heard that already? So I’m on the defensive whenever I bring up something KSU and the first thing I get is a disagreement or ridicule.
But yeah, I like Cribbs, Edelman, Elam, (I get distrait when I hear the possibilities of cutting him honestly) and Gates. Lambert was beast but was extremely ugly (not a good face for the football program IMO) and I am ashamed Harrison can call himself a Flash.
May I ask where you saw your show? I probably have a class in the hall you went to haha.
SpecialBrownie - October 28, 2010
honestly, many people who make that rhyme/joke need to be a bit more introspective.
I am considering KSU once I graduate. Its not stellar in what I want to go into but pretty darn solid (at least from what I gather).
bross09 - October 29, 2010
I graduated from KSU. It’s a good school IMO.
I actually went there the same time as Cribbs, but I never went to the games or saw him at school or anything – just read about him in the papers.
da36chamberz - October 29, 2010
yeah. Its highly underrated IMO. many of the ohio state schools are (even OSU to some degree).
Its surprising that you didn’t go to games and you are commenting about football…or maybe you weren’t as much of a fan back then.
bross09 - October 29, 2010
To be honest, I wasn’t much of a fan of College football. I didn’t know much about the KSU squad when I went to school there, I only heard about Cribbs. It’s kinda funny though, I started to take more interest in the college game a few years after I graduated. Maybe it was because I didn’t have to run to class anymore.
I’ve always been a Browns fan though – still got my ’87 team picture hanging on the fridge.
da36chamberz - October 29, 2010
ahh…
it is a lot easier to watch football when you don’t have to worry about classes…then again, I never had classes on friday or saturday so it wasn’t a huge worry for me personally.
bross09 - October 29, 2010
I’m considering it now. (CSU dropped out of the running). But I’m leaning towards BG. Cost of living is a big factor.
Simmsinns - October 29, 2010
yeah. KSU is nice.
for transferring, my ideal place would be OSU. I am doing really well right now and can get in, but may not get as much in scholarships than from a KSU or an OU. plus, I need a 3.0 to transfer to their business school and even if I keep up this 3.5 pace, It still can’t make up for my grade snafu last year…It sucks.
Obviously programs make a major difference. BG might be cheaper but I dunno what their business school is like.
bross09 - October 29, 2010
not BG! NOOOOOOOO!
SpecialBrownie - October 29, 2010
Well my options are
Ohio U, Kent St, and BG. Those are the schools accredited in journalism. I like the smaller BG campus and it’ll be tens of thousands of dollars cheaper to live (over the 5-6 semesters.)Simmsinns - October 29, 2010
Unless there is a huge difference in the quality of the program, go to BG.
notthatnoise - October 29, 2010
KSU>>>>>>>BG.
SpecialBrownie - October 29, 2010
Why is OU crossed out? If you want to do journalism, and you can get in to OU, that’s where you go.
Chemo - October 29, 2010
Most expensive.
Simmsinns - October 29, 2010
Also one of the better journalism schools in the country. And a better campus than any of your other options.
golanbatrac - October 29, 2010
KSU is extremely up and coming. I doubt you’ve seen it in the last year or two.
SpecialBrownie - October 30, 2010
Tony Grossi went there.
rufio - October 30, 2010
A black mark indeed.
golanbatrac - October 30, 2010
But if you can get into the scripps school it’s definitely worth. Think about that bit more of money as a short term investment in your future
bross09 - October 30, 2010 via mobile
it may not be a “bit” more money.
notthatnoise - October 30, 2010
1. I can’t get into Scripps.
2. What NTN said, we’re talking multiple tens of thousands of dollars… more.
Simmsinns - October 30, 2010
really? Its that much more?
bross09 - October 31, 2010
Yes. Tuition is more, but mostly I’d have to pay to a lot more to live down there.
Simmsinns - October 31, 2010
ahh…
Wasn’t thinking about that. do you live near BG and thats why? because I can’t imagine why it would be so much more otherwise to live in athens.
bross09 - October 31, 2010
Cost of Living in Athens is super low (all of SE Ohio, for that matter).
golanbatrac - October 31, 2010
yeah, thats what I hear.
bross09 - November 1, 2010
OU is a great journalism school.
emily522 - October 29, 2010
My fiancée almost went to BG. It’s def. affordable.
… But instead she chose to go to Grace College where we pay $30,000/yr. Smart move. But we met here, so it’s all good.
shep615 - October 29, 2010
Any WR you plug into that offense, especially in that slot position, is going to rack up receptions. sorry if I’m far from convinced that it has anything to do with Edelman’s talent.
notthatnoise - October 28, 2010
You have to be quick in small spaces and you have to be able to catch the ball to play that slot position. Not saying it is an especially rare talent, but Edelman fits the bill and played well when Welker was out.
rufio - October 29, 2010
fair enough, not any receiver. I just think playing in that offense makes people look better than they are.
notthatnoise - October 29, 2010
The stats hold a different weight, but the defense still wants to stop those WRs from moving the ball/scoring and they can’t.
rufio - October 30, 2010
I’m a Longhorns fan and watched Colt McCoy in many UT games over the years.
I had watched Vince Young beat USC single-handedly in the ’06 Rose Bowl championship game and thought his act could never be followed.
Then I started watching Colt as he proceeded to re-write the college record books.
Colt’s accuracy when throwing the football, both from the pocket or on the run is simply uncanny.
And when necessary he can turn on the speed. Watch his acceleration in these clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htpJjUAdkbo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSBACEXftw8&feature=related
I knew well that college skills rarely translate over to the NFL with any predictability, and that in the NFL ‘size matters’, etc. But I also had come to know Colt through his interviews, press conferences and just watching him on the field. He has a head for the game that I believe is unmatched. Superb leadership skills with a burning drive to win, but also a level headed, humble temperament with an unselfish agenda. Re: his performance in New Orleans. Imagine Jay Cutler in the same situation – think Cutler would have put protecting the football as priority #1 after his defense had already succeeded in lighting up the scoreboard?
IMHO these intangible qualities can enable the physical skills demonstrated at the college level to carry over to the NFL level. I believe that is what Brown’s fans are now seeing as they’ve watched Colt in his first couple of real tests at the NFL level, against arguably the best opponents the NFL could have offered up to a 3rd string rookie QB unexpectedly thrust into a trial by fire.
In the end, it may not really matter whether the near term depth chart = McCoy/Wallace or Wallace/McCoy.
Wallace was doing pretty well before he was injured, so Mangini has a difficult call to make. Either way the #1 guy will be subject to being bumped to the #2 spot if he starts turning the ball over and/or fails to keep moving the chains and putting points on the board.
Bottom line though is the Brown’s long term plan should be based on Colt McCoy as their future solution as the starting QB, however they handle the situation over the next few weeks.
burntorangeandbrown - October 28, 2010
I think we all believe that Colt is the only future we have at QB on the roster. We agree it’s a question of when—not if—he should get his shot.
rufio - October 28, 2010
I am still for Delhomme.
1. I think this is what is best for Colt right now, and thus what is best for the team’s future.
2. I think Delhomme plays faster because he makes better and quicker reads at this moment. I think this makes him a more effective QB in the short term, insofar as the short term matters.
3. I believe Delhomme has the most chemistry with our receivers, allowing us to evaluate them the best.
4. I don’t want Seneca starting if the QB race is anywhere close. I want to see the Cyclone and Flash packages more, which I don’t think will happen if Seneca is the #1. Maybe now if Delhomme/McCoy starts, Seneca is the #2 and we aren’t afraid of getting him the ball because we have more faith in our #3 guy (other one of Delhomme/McCoy).
rufio - October 28, 2010
after coming back to reality I’m with you here. I’d like to see Delhomme out there, if he’s healthy of course.
notthatnoise - October 28, 2010
I know Mangini is the HC and makes the decision on who to play but I think there has to be some dialogue between Holmgren, Heckert and Mangini. If H&H have seen enough out of McCoy to think he might be the long-term answer, then it would make sense to keep playing him and watch his development. This could clarify who to target in the draft (or who not to target).
If H&H love the QBs available in this upcoming draft class and really want to aim for one of the top prospects regardless of what McCoy has done, then play whoever gives the team the best chance to win right now.
Monsters of the Midway - October 28, 2010
He did say he was going to talk to both Holmgren and Heckert.
TheDriveStillHurts - October 28, 2010
I am frightened that Jake Delhomme will do far more to cost us a game than help us to win it.
Simmsinns - October 28, 2010
Agreed. He goes through his reads the fastest, he is the most knowledgeable, and he has the best arm of our quarterbacks, but despite these things he still makes careless throws. Jake Delhomme is too reckless.
Bumblyjack - October 28, 2010
Totally agree.
Plus Colt will learn to read defenses much more quickly playing rather than clipboard holding. He obviously can handle it. He’s done a really good job with 2 of the best so far.
HenryDawg - November 1, 2010 via mobile
Does anyone look at Seneca Wallace in that picture and think “Should I wear my shirt up? Or down? Up?… Or POSSIBLY… Tucked in.” ?
shep615 - October 28, 2010
To be honest I never wanted Jake to come here to begin with, not that I hate him or anything. I just believe his time has come & gone, as a starter. You can say he has the experience & ability to read the D quicker, but then why is his decision making so questionable at times?
Seneca is probably the better choice over Jake, he does have his bad moments though but his mobility puts him above Jake. His accuracy can get him into trouble on long balls so that’s a downer, overall I believe he’s the better choice over Jake but Jake was crooned to be our starter.
Colt does need some more start time before the season ends, we do need to evaluate him a little more than what we’ve been able to so far. Even at the excuse of just wanting to give Seneca/Jake more healing time, Colt can use the experience & without question he has not shown he should ride the pine just because he looks like Cutler did the past few weeks because he didn’t.
Groza - October 28, 2010
Seneca can’t throw a pass longer than 15 yards, his mobility has very rarely come into play, he can’t read a defense, and he runs out of bounds behind the line of scrimmage. No thanks.
notthatnoise - October 28, 2010
Correct but….
Jake can throw it further & into the hands of a DB.
He can get sacked for a bigger loss vs. stepping out of bounds a yard or two behind the line.
He can read the D better so he knows which D player he can throw the ball to.
That’s a better option?
Groza - October 28, 2010
i agree Jake has still not learned how to look aff a db, that is something oposing defences picked up on when he played in the nfc. Now the Afc guys have seen it. watch the game tape of him for when he was out there. There were about 6 ints that were inches out of dbs hands. not the kind of inches that a good qb makes his throws work with either, but the kind that crappy safties (TB, KC) almost got. Every db in the league was a mile ahead of where jake was going to throw the ball b4 he was. While all these comparisons are made noone here has talked about the defenses each qb has faced. jackes were a breeze plus he had a healty wideout core to throw to as did wallace. Colt has noone has done really good for a rookie against the best safties in the nfl and most feirce pass rushes. True he didnt dominate the game but do u think maning would of had the best performance aganist the steelers d with our joke of a receiver core? Colt has done better than any of the rookie qb fenoms that have been drafted, granted its only been two games but hey ITS ONLY BEEN TWO GAMES. Ride the hot hand we beat the saints with Colt at helm now we have a healty hillis again, and he hes hade 2 more weeks with the first offense and cribs will be back at wr. But if we are talking best chance to win and you guys who vote for jake think 6 int games are it then hey start jake, but to see this kid go almost completly flawless in decision making against the defenses he faced with no wr’s and no time with the ones reminded me of another qb who stepped in and read defense like that and was one of the most error free qbs ever. Vote Colt because if an arm chair like me can see the pass coming those defenses will love 6 ints a game frome wallace. Vote colt because seneca was ok with the healty wideouts but will fall teribly with this group and cant win throwing balls into the stands.
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
i meant 6 ints games from jake
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
sorry to be a grammar jerk … but who, exactly, sang to him about being our starter??
i think w/ jake’s double ankle injury you’ve got the air cover to play mccoy again in the pats game (regardless of wallace’s health) under the guise of trying to get jake as healthy as possible. if mccoy lights up the pats, maybe you give him the shot for the rest of the year. if not, jake’s healthy in time for the jets and colt goes back to the bench.
i’d still vote to make mccoy the starter until “something happens” to make him not the starter, but i see a scenario like the above possibly playing out.
DontCallMeJoey - October 28, 2010
LOL
That was a figure of speech, not meant to be literal. Basically he was targeted as a starter & was approached in that manner.
Would you agree on that?
Groza - October 28, 2010
I think “groomed” was the word you were looking for . . .
TheDriveStillHurts - October 28, 2010
But that doesn’t really make sense, either, because when people say that someone was “groomed to be a starter” that is always in reference to a young player who is learning to eventually become a starter, not a veteran brought in to start right away. So I don’t think it’s correct to say that Jake was groomed to be the starter.
Buckeye Brad - October 28, 2010
Its sad the coaches need an excuse to start McCoy. How about doing it because its the best move for the team. Out of all 3, he seems to be the best prepared. Delhomme is a head case, wallace is good, but if he’s not “the future” then let’s get some who might be some experience.
HenryDawg - November 2, 2010 via mobile
amen about the exp why i would love to see a playoff run its basically gone so let the kid go. That shows who he has chemistry with so we know where to draft
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
I need to just get this off my chest.
This is the exact reason why the Browns have sucked for 10+ years. Constantly dicking around with the one position in football where some kind or order is needed. Every year with the same B.S.
We have a young QB that shows promise, so we think he should be benched?
I could care less about the development of Robo and MoMass. That is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse, even more so considering that Robo sucks (Let’s save that argument for another thread).
It comes down to some simple questions in my mind.
Who gives the Browns the best chance to win every Sunday? (I would choose McCoy over Wallace by a nose)
Who should be getting the most reps with the 1’s in practice? (McCoy, not even close)
Who is going to be the only QB under contract with the Cleveland Browns next season? (McCoy, I really hope we don’t pay Delhomme 5 million dollars to hold a clipboard)
Who should the WR’s be getting a rapport with? (McCoy in another landslide)
Who should get the majority of the work here in a bye week? (McCoy)
Delhomme is horrible.
Wallace is Colt McCoy without the upside.
Starting anyone other than McCoy is just wasting McCoy’s development time.
Bernie19Kosar - October 28, 2010
What you just said. The key being this:
One minor quibble — I think Seneca remains on our roster next season; he is a solid backup.
TheDriveStillHurts - October 28, 2010
agreed i like senaca there. hes cheap, a vet that can win, and is learning the system
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
I’m not sure that Holmgren would agree that Colt is wasting his time studying from the sidelines. Secondly, winning now is a great plan as long as it doesn’t cost wins in a future year that would be more meaningful wins. If Jake costs us games now, but enables the team to develop better and more quickly, I’m in favor of it. But, we are less qualified than Holmgren to guess which path is most likely to lead to future successes. This is not our year. And when it isn’t our year, the strategies change.
elsandito - October 28, 2010
My personal belief is that a QB learns more by playing than watching.
The only time I don’t want a young QB playing is when he is:
A) Clearly not ready (Tim Tebow)
B) Going to get killed by a horrible offensive line (Tim Couch)
McCoy doesn’t fit into those. Plus if McCoy starts, he gets more practice reps with the starters. Win-win.
Bernie19Kosar - October 28, 2010
I totally agree. Even though our WRs are suspect, mcCoy is in a great position considering our line and running game.
I do believe a guy learns a bit more from playing. However, my reason is more that if a guy shows he can handle the position early on (like Colt has) then you should play him early. Sitting him now could hurt his psyche (though this isn’t a big worry) and if we wait too long, we could end up with a BQ situation.
we obviously don’t want to throw him in too early, but at the same time we don’t want to keep waiting for a guy to become the QBOTF with him sitting on the bench for 3 years instead of having us draft a QB. If Arizona actually took a chance on leinart instead of putting the problem off till the future (if he would be the QBOTF), then they might have been able to give up on him and grab a chad henne and develop him.
bross09 - October 29, 2010
I honestly don’t foresee Colt ever being in a BQ situation. He seems to already be more confident and poised than BQ ever was, with apologies to Rocland.
Dawg Nuts - October 29, 2010
I totally agree. It won’t be a bq situation and yes he has poise. That’s more of a reason IMO to not wait and see and find out now if he can be the QBOTF
bross09 - October 30, 2010 via mobile
I am not disagreeing with your view that qbs learn more by playing. Perhaps Holmgren agrees with this. If the Browns start JD or Wallace, then he doesn’t agree. But, if Holmgren doesn’t agree, I have no problem with the decision as Holmgren doesn’t have anything left to prove when it comes to developing qbs.
elsandito - October 29, 2010
I won’t start anything about that argument, but want to point out that this type of thing is annoying. You make claims to back up your statement that you yourself are admitting are debatable, and then say you don’t want to have that debate. The validity of those claims matters to your point, you can’t just tell us to accept them so that your argument makes sense.
I realize this seems pointed at you, but I really just mean it as a general thing. I happen to agree with you here. Not that Robi definitively sucks, but that picking a QB based on the receiver’s development is stupid.
notthatnoise - October 28, 2010
The only reason I added the disclaimer was because we have beaten that horse in another thread, not to try and prove my point. My views on Robo are readily available there, I just didn’t want this turning into an echo chamber. I can understand what you are saying though.
Bernie19Kosar - October 28, 2010
right, I really wasn’t trying to jump down your throat or anything, I understand why you did it.
notthatnoise - October 29, 2010
well said.
I for one, am sick of the QB carousel. I understand that injuries happen, and yes, you shouldn’t lose your starting spot because of injury. However, if you’re not getting the job done, you are not getting reps, and eventually you’re relocating (ala Jerome Harrison) In the NFL, your spot is somewhat determined on “what have you done for me lately?”
To me, here’s what the QBs have done for us lately:
Delhomme: threw away a game, got injured, played injured, threw away another game.
Wallace: went 1-3, got injured, played decent
McCoy : went 1-1 – facing Pitt and N.O.
I also don’t see Jake staying with this team next year. Seneca might stick as a backup, but you have to think, of the 3, McCoy is our starter next year (obviously not taking into account draft picks or FAs or trades).
I also agree that McCoy can only learn so much sitting on the bench. If he learns the same way I do, it’s by doing, not by observing. You could show me something 100 times, but I’m not going to get a proper feel for it until I’ve actually done it.
da36chamberz - October 29, 2010
shoulda been 2-0 except that some officials had fat pockets that week. he outplayed big ben rapist in every aspect of that game
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
We have constantly dicked around with thw QBs because we haven’t had any good ones since (maybe) Couch.
rufio - October 29, 2010
Fair.
Bernie19Kosar - October 29, 2010
i can’t even give you couch, on that one. we’ve never had a good qb in this version of the browns. in fact, we’ve never even threatened to have a good qb in this version of the browns.
DontCallMeJoey - October 29, 2010
2002 begs to differ with you.
notthatnoise - October 30, 2010
2800 yards, 18 td’s, 18 picks, and a 77 rating? you’re grasping at straws…
DontCallMeJoey - October 30, 2010
He’s did that with one of the worst Olines ever conceived.
SpecialBrownie - October 30, 2010
I don’t know about you, but I think we threatened to have 2 good QBs in 2002. I also think we threatened to have a good QB in 2007.
notthatnoise - October 31, 2010
subtle, but important, difference: good qb, and good qb stats
DontCallMeJoey - October 31, 2010
Couch’s talent is mostly beside my point: our QBs have been awful on the whole, which is why we’ve never had “the guy”.
rufio - October 30, 2010
agree to agree
DontCallMeJoey - October 30, 2010
Couch was or would have been a good QB if he’d played on a decent team. Did he ever look like a great QB? No. Did he get much opportunity to stand in the pocket and make some good throws? No. Were a lot of perfectly good passes dropped? Yes.
9James - October 30, 2010
golan and I would like to welcome you to the Tim Couch Appreciation Society.
Dawg Nuts - November 1, 2010
His membership card and decoder ring are in the mail.
golanbatrac - November 1, 2010
also, his vinyl jacket with “75.1” on the back.
Dawg Nuts - November 1, 2010
he did play on a good team look and see where he got traded and see how that worked out
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
It’s not like the Browns haven’t tried out young quarterbacks (Luke McCown, Charlie Frye, Brady Quinn), all of whom showed “promise.” This year, it’s not like we have veterans on our roster who don’t fit our system either (i.e. Garcia and Dilfer). Delhomme and Wallace should be pretty capable in working with our offense.
When we brought Mike Holmgren on board, I think the “dicking around at QB” ended, because a plan was set in place: we know Delhomme and Wallace aren’t long term answers, but they will anchor the ship for a year or two. After that, we can decide whether to give McCoy a shot or whether the team will invest in a first-round QB. That is the order that the new regime tried to put in place at quarterback; going with a veteran doesn’t disrupt that plan.
Please remember that I’m not against McCoy starting. Most of my talking points have been about what I believe Eric Mangini will do, and why he will do it.
Chris Pokorny - October 29, 2010
If it came across that I was attacking you for the article, that isn’t what I was trying to portray.
It was more of a frustration with this franchise and our inability to never go a season without a QB controversy. I just want to see if McCoy can sink or swim. We will never be a Super Bowl contender until we get that position settled. If McCoy is the answer, great. If he isn’t, then we need to know ASAP.
Bernie19Kosar - October 29, 2010
I didn’t take it that way, but I see why you thought my response made it seem like I thought that.
Chris Pokorny - October 29, 2010
Rec and I agree.
emily522 - October 29, 2010
I don’t want Delhomme to play another down with the Browns if possible. He’s clearly at the end of his career and he has shown us nothing, healthy or not, to show us otherwise.
Wallace is a career backup. Sure, he gives you “a chance to win”, but we need more than that.
So I basically agree with everything you said :)
BuenosAires_Dawg - October 30, 2010
Let’s be fair to Delhomme, until he got injured he looked like the best QB we’d had in years.
notthatnoise - October 31, 2010
Can we really say that after 30 minutes of football?
Bernie19Kosar - November 1, 2010
watch the footage closer he tanked
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
mee too put colt in for the rest of this season and give him next season no if and or buts
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
Amen. Not starting Colt would be the most obtuse, head up the butt move they could make.
HenryDawg - November 2, 2010 via mobile
My biggest objection is the notion that if we send Colt out there now, we’ll see what we’ve got. It’s like sending a first year lawyer into court to try a case to see if he’s up to it. You can only know what you’ve got after the student is fully prepared to do the job. All we’ll see from Colt now is a series of mistakes stemming from his lack of knowledge. We absolutely won’t know what we’ve got at all. We’ll be sending him out unprepared into traffic. And maybe that’s the price we need to pay to develop him. But, don’t believe that it will tell us anything about the player he can become.
elsandito - October 29, 2010
I meant a first year law student by the way.
elsandito - October 29, 2010
have you watched the last 2 games?
DontCallMeJoey - October 29, 2010
Yes, he missed several open receivers against New Orleans and he turned it over twice against pittsburgh. He’s shown promise but that’s exactly the point: it’s promise. He’s done some good things, but he isn’t developed to the point where he is the player he’s going to be.
rufio - October 30, 2010
i don’t think anyone in favor of starting colt has argued anything even close to this. the whole idea is to see what he’s got.
but elsand’s assessment was pretty harsh, and the repeated use of “we’ll be sending him out” and phrases like that make it sound like he’s not aware that colt has now played more football this year than jake delhomme.
DontCallMeJoey - October 30, 2010
It was the point elsandito was making, not necessarily arguing against what others had argued for Colt elsewhere. We might “see what he’s got” now, but that probably doesn’t let us know for sure whether we should draft Luck, whether we are set for the future, etc.
You are not honestly trying to use the fact that Colt has played more this year as evidence that he is somehow more prepared to play, are you? Delhomme’s years of experience and just being around the NFL give him the edge in preparedness, not to mention the reps he’s gotten with our 1s all throughout training camp while Colt was mostly taking “mental reps”.
The analogy is a harsh one—perhaps a sink/swim analogy would be better, where there is actually a chance for survival—but he makes a point. The plan all along (Holmgren’s plan) was to sit Colt this year and let him learn, then let him earn a shot down the road when we can evaluate him fairly.
rufio - October 31, 2010
definitely not.
DontCallMeJoey - October 31, 2010
I was honestly wondering. Sorry for doubting you. I won’t be upset if Colt starts, I just hope Holmgren can evaluate him in a very SSS and project his development despite his being so green.
I would hate to play Colt and/or have a mess at QB, lose a lot of games, and still not know if we should try to make a move to get Luck or take a shot on Mallet/Locker/whoever else in the draft. I hope Mangini is in Holmgren’s office right now.
rufio - October 31, 2010
how can u say a series of mistakes from colt. even the announcers commented on how great this kids decision making was. he did the right thing against those defenses with no wrs at and hardly any practice with the 1’s. his lack of mistakes was one of the greater qb starts ive ever seen in my life and ive seen alot of the greats
Ericxxx - November 3, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.