Talk to Me About Game After Bye

[peeker643]

Interesting read here about how development of McCoy could clearly hinge on Mangini's security.

Just I'm not so sure it's that clear. If Wallace or Delhomme gave you a certifiably and appreciably larger chance to win then maybe, but do they?

Mangini may already feel that McCoy actually gives him best chance right now. I don't think that's crazy to believe. I also may be in the minority that don't see Mangini as being in trouble.

Thoughts?

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1419 ... ng-problem

[Ziner]

The best chance to win IMO is Wallace. However, if Holmgren is on board and if Mangini is most likely staying it is very likely and not ill-advised to play Colt.

However if Holmgren leaves this completely up to Mangini (which I have my doubts about) he could play Wallace to have the best chance to win and save his job, or he could consider playing Colt to have an excuse about losses. I guess it comes down to the actual dynamic between HMFIC, GM and Coach.

I am slightly torn between playing Wallace and McCoy. The only thing that I won't be able to understand is Delhomme.

[Erie Warrior]

I think they have to play him. Last weeks game was great, but I still don't see them winning 5 games, which means there are several QBs in the draft that the Browns will have a shot at. If Doe Eyes can cut the mustard, then they can use that pick to fill any number of other shortcomings. And I'm not sure Wallace is better.

[bac5665]

They have to play McCoy.

We need to know.

NEED. TO. KNOW.

Wallace may give us a better chance, but it's very close, and I can't see how a slightly better chance to win now is worth dramatically increasing the odds that we waste our 1st round pick next year.

I've been a Mangini backer for most of this season. Clearly the man needs to be shot and killed as a GM, but he clearly can coach. But playing anyone other than McCoy seems to me to be so mind-numbingly stupid as to demand his firing.

[yogi]

A few thoughts about this QB situation:

I dont think starting Delhomme is a dumb move. I could see that Jake comes back and plays to the high level of Pre-season games and when we moved the ball effectively against TB before his ankle injury.

If he plays well, he is probably our best chance to win these games.

If he does not, Mangini has options- probably to go with Wallace if he is healthy and is at this stage our 2nd best chance if he plays well to win games.

McCoy should play in a few weeks if we lose to both the Pats and Jets. We would be 2-7 and playing out the string so playing Colt raises interest and we see what we have.

Its important to know what we have in McCoy and evaluate him as best we can this year but not at the expense of winning games. But its also important to shake this loser mentality stench off the team and even though our record is at 2-5, I think we have made in-roads to that problem so far this year.

Delhomme has got to know that if he gets 1 more chance, it's his last one. And to be fair, he won the job in TC and deserves more than 28 minutes to lose it.

Lastly, Jake (and Seneca) also need to know that even if they play well and we still lose at some point with games to play, Colt will have to get the nod.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I may be in the minority in this, but I don't give a shit about who plays QB. I'm watching Hillis and the Defense.

Eric Wright still sucks though.

[Hikohadon]

Personally, I don't think Delhomme brings anything to the table that the other 2 can't call and raise.

But that's just me. What matters is what Mangini and Holmgren think.

Mangini will never tell us. Holmgren had this piece in the PD:

In an interview in Sunday's Plain Dealer, Holmgren indicated a desire and responsibility to evaluate McCoy to make a conclusion on whether another quarterback needs to be drafted next year. He said he would have a better idea on McCoy "if he were able to play four or five games."

So I guess we know who Holmgren thinks should play.

So, if McCoy isn't already Mangini's choice, he's got 2 choices:

1. Play the guy that his boss wants him to play and hope that he'll be around next year to reap the rewards of finding out now whether or not Colt might be the Franchise QB.

2. Play the guy that he thinks gives him the best chance to win now and keep his job (if it is indeed in jeapordy).

I think the argument that Wallace gives them a better chance to win is valid, but probably not so huge a difference that it isn't worth it to develop the rook. Plus, you can always use "I was playing your guy" as a defense at the end of the season.

[yogi]

Personally, I don't think Delhomme brings anything to the table that the other 2 can't call and raise.

But that's just me. What matters is what Mangini and Holmgren think.

Mangini will never tell us. Holmgren had this piece in the PD:

In an interview in Sunday's Plain Dealer, Holmgren indicated a desire and responsibility to evaluate McCoy to make a conclusion on whether another quarterback needs to be drafted next year. He said he would have a better idea on McCoy "if he were able to play four or five games."

So I guess we know who Holmgren thinks should play.

So, if McCoy isn't already Mangini's choice, he's got 2 choices:

1. Play the guy that his boss wants him to play and hope that he'll be around next year to reap the rewards of finding out now whether or not Colt might be the Franchise QB.

2. Play the guy that he thinks gives him the best chance to win now and keep his job (if it is indeed in jeapordy).

I think the argument that Wallace gives them a better chance to win is valid, but probably not so huge a difference that it isn't worth it to develop the rook. Plus, you can always use "I was playing your guy" as a defense at the end of the season.

Holmgren said 4 or 5 games. There are 9 left.

If Mangini and Dumball were making this QB decision on their own merits, I'd be worried, But I am relieved a whole bunch knowing that MH and Heckert are in the mix.

[motherscratcher]

Holmgren said 4 or 5 games. There are 9 left.

If Mangini and Dumball were making this QB decision on their own merits, I'd be worried, But I am relieved a whole bunch knowing that MH and Heckert are in the mix.

Do you think that Holmgren wants to wait until there are only 4-5 games left and then HOPE that there is another legit reason to put McCoy back in?

I think it is justifiable right now for Colt to continue starting. I think that what Holmgren whats to see happen. And, I think Mangini probably wants to be on Holmgren's "team" more than he wants to see Wallace or Jake back in there, even if he thinks they are slightly better.

So, I think we will probably see some more of McCoy. Sucks for Wallace. Guy can't catch a break.

Of course I could be wrong. I wouldn't fall out of my chair in surprise if Wallace was announced as starter. But, if he does, what happens if in 5 weeks the Browns are 4-7, and coming off a win with some halfway decent QB play out of Wallace?

I think Holmgen/Heckert/Mangini will end up seeing giving Colt the starting job as reasonable and justifiable. And so they will.

[Fire Marshall Bill]

I read it that McCoy plays now.

The 'what if' is what if Wallace plays and starts winning games? How do you bench him then in favor of Colt? That won't go over well with anyone in the locker room.

The fact both Wallace and JD have made more mistakes is reason enuff to keep both on the bench for a couple more weeks 'to heal'

McCoy gets 4-5 games now...if the Browns win and/or he looks the part we save a pick on another QB in the 1st rd

If not, let the projections begin

[aoxo1]

I don't think Wallace is a guy who gives you a good chance to win, unless your defense is carrying you to wins.

Dude puts up nice numbers and doesn't make glaring mistakes. But just watching him on tv, you can tell that he is missing bigger, winning type plays even when he manages to complete a pass for 7 yards. I wonder what they think watching him on coach's film. There is a reason he is 4-11 since 2008 in games that he started (or at least threw the ball as much as a starter). And that's with a decent completion % and TD/INT ratio, so I don't think I am just imagining the above statement.

[daddywags]

If Holmgren and Mangini are playing silly "I won't tell you who I think should start/I'm going to try to figure out who you want me to start/No you won't I'll never let you know until after" type games then a pox on both their houses. I certainly hope they, along with the other offensive coaches and Tom Heckert, are working together to make the plan that gives this franchise optimal success long term. And, frankly, that's what I think is happening. This is based on 1. common sense, and 2. reports I've read from people who should know that Holmgren and Mangini talk on a daily basis.

Also, why should we have faith that Holmgren will pick the right QB if we take one at the top end of the next draft when he's now told us that he can't tell if a QB "has it" until he sees him play 4 or 5 NFL football games? None of the guys in the draft will meet that criteria. Maybe I'm crazy, but I always thought the best NFL gurus could tell a Chuck Frye from an Aaron Rodgers just from watching them practice.

[motherscratcher]

If Holmgren and Mangini are playing silly "I won't tell you who I think should start/I'm going to try to figure out who you want me to start/No you won't I'll never let you know until after" type games then a pox on both their houses. I certainly hope they, along with the other offensive coaches and Tom Heckert, are working together to make the plan that gives this franchise optimal success long term. And, frankly, that's what I think is happening. This is based on 1. common sense, and 2. reports I've read from people who should know that Holmgren and Mangini talk on a daily basis.

Also, why should we have faith that Holmgren will pick the right QB if we take one at the top end of the next draft when he's now told us that he can't tell if a QB "has it" until he sees him play 4 or 5 NFL football games? None of the guys in the draft will meet that criteria. Maybe I'm crazy, but I always thought the best NFL gurus could tell a Chuck Frye from an Aaron Rodgers just from watching them practice.

Are you saying that Holmgren should already know if Colt is an NFL QB? That if Holmgren needs to see more tape on Colt in live action then he's obviously not cut out for this NFL stuff?

I'm not sure where you got the "NFL gurus could tell a Chuck Frye from an Aaron Rodgers just from watching them practice" line. I've never heard that. Then again, I doubt you need to be an NFL guru to tell those two apart anyway.

What I want to know is...who are the NFL gurus. We should just have them watch a few of Colt's practices and have them let us know.

Or, maybe we should trust that Holmgren, through his career, has earned a little trust that he knows a little something about these things. And, if he says he'd like to see 4-5 games, then he should get 4-5 games. I don't know, that seems plenty reasonable to me.

[daddywags]

But you see, that's what I don't get. If he has to see 4 or 5 more games (which makes 7 starts total) to know if the kid can play in the NFL or not, then why should I trust him to pick among Luck, Locker and Mallett if we're picking at the top of the draft next April (or whenever it is)?

I think 1. he knows more than he's saying, and 2. he doesn't want to say what he really thinks. So he gives us the fans' view: "Let's watch him play another 4 or 5 games and then we'll know." Hell, if we watch him play 4 or 5 more games you and I will know if he can play - why pay Mike Holmgren $50 million for that?

No, I pay Mike Holmgren to go into a draft with the first pick and know which of Tim Couch, Donavon McNabb, Dante Culpepper, Akili Smith and Cade McNown is an NFL QB and which ones will be laughed out of the league in two years. I pay Mike Holmgren to go into the draft with the top pick and know whether to use it on Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. I wouldn't dream of asking you to do that, but I expect Mike Holmgren to do that - and do it right - or I'd get somebody else.

And all of those decisions had to be made before any of those guys played one down in the NFL, let alone 4 or 5 games. Just sayin'.

[motherscratcher]

But you see, that's what I don't get. If he has to see 4 or 5 more games (which makes 7 starts total) to know if the kid can play in the NFL or not, then why should I trust him to pick among Luck, Locker and Mallett if we're picking at the top of the draft next April (or whenever it is)?

I think 1. he knows more than he's saying, and 2. he doesn't want to say what he really thinks. So he gives us the fans' view: "Let's watch him play another 4 or 5 games and then we'll know." Hell, if we watch him play 4 or 5 more games you and I will know if he can play - why pay Mike Holmgren $50 million for that?

No, I pay Mike Holmgren to go into a draft with the first pick and know which of Tim Couch, Donavon McNabb, Dante Culpepper, Akili Smith and Cade McNown is an NFL QB and which ones will be laughed out of the league in two years. I pay Mike Holmgren to go into the draft with the top pick and know whether to use it on Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. I wouldn't dream of asking you to do that, but I expect Mike Holmgren to do that - and do it right - or I'd get somebody else.

And all of those decisions had to be made before any of those guys played one down in the NFL, let alone 4 or 5 games. Just sayin'.

Nobody "knows" anything, dude. It's all guesswork. If it wasn't, there wouldn't ever be any busts. He's not a magician. He has to see a player to evaluate him. And I have no idea why you think that evaluating them in college or practice is as valuable as evaluating them during live game action.

And, if he decides that we still need a QB then I trust him to be able to evaluate between Luck, Mallet, Locker, and Pryor (for you SD) a hell of a lot more than I trust any one of us yahoos getting drunk and making declarations on sundays.

But to say you don't trust him with that decision because he (gasp) wanted to see the kid in action is ridiculous. He's being prudent.

Doesn't mean he can't be wrong, but he sure as shit will be less likely to be wrong if he has more info. But it's still just a guess.

Don't tell him his business Daddywags. It's all ball bearings now-a-days.

[jb]

Interesting read here about how development of McCoy could clearly hinge on Mangini's security.

"Yes Mike. No Mike."

That's how Mangini gets his security vis a vis the QB situation.

[jb]

No, I pay Mike Holmgren to go into a draft with the first pick and know which of Tim Couch, Donavon McNabb, Dante Culpepper, Akili Smith and Cade McNown is an NFL QB and which ones will be laughed out of the league in two years. I pay Mike Holmgren to go into the draft with the top pick and know whether to use it on Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. ... Just sayin'.

Bobby Beathard drafted Ryan Leaf. Yeah, that Bobby Beathard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Beathard


" Just sayin' "

( IOW, quality rant, but IMhO your expectations are unrealistic. Walrus isn't god.)

[peeker643]

Interesting read here about how development of McCoy could clearly hinge on Mangini's security.

"Yes Mike. No Mike."

That's how Mangini gets his security vis a vis the QB situation.

I get that. I said in the OP that I truly believe Mangini believes McCoy gives him a similar chance to win that the other two has beens/never weres do.

Not knocking them but that's clearly what they are. It says more about their mediocrity than McCoy's potential, whatever that may be.

Mangini has that team's ear. He comes out smelling even better if they play hard and win with a raw rookie. I wouldn't discount that either.

To wit: http://bit.ly/cF17qW

Judgements: Mangini shows genius with depleted Browns

Oct. 25, 2010

1. Few coaches do more with less than Cleveland's Eric Mangini. Last year he won five games with his quarterbacks completing a combined 33 passes -- including two in one game. Now he beats the defending Super Bowl champion -- in its stadium, no less -- without his first two quarterbacks, without one of his top wide receivers and with his most effective weapon, Josh Cribbs, coming off a concussion and a rookie in charge of the huddle. Are you kidding me? That he has two victories with the material that passes for an offense isn't an upset; it's a minor miracle.

2. Cleveland is 6-5 over its last 11 games; Denver is 2-9, including a disgraceful 59-14 loss to Oakland at home. Eric Mangini or Josh McDaniels? You tell me who was the better hire.

[daddywags]

Okay, fine. 7 games it is. If that's the norm for an NFL QB super-guru to know for sure, I'll go with it.

You'all win.

Didn't think I was tellin' MH his business, just wondering whether he's really showing all his cards.

But he's the genius, so I'll relent.

[motherscratcher]

Okay, fine. 7 games it is. If that's the norm for an NFL QB super-guru to know for sure, I'll go with it.

You'all win.

Didn't think I was tellin' MH his business, just wondering whether he's really showing all his cards.

But he's the genius, so I'll relent.

So you read my post that said "guess" and other similar things multiple times came came up with "that's the norm for an NFL QB super-guru to know for sure." Maybe you should read my post again.

I never said 7 games was enough, too much, the norm, or anything else. It's just what Mike fucking Holmgren said he would like, and I have no reason to question his judgement.

You're the one who seems to know how much an NFL super-guru (whatever that is) needs to see in order to determine if they are a going to be good QB. You haven't said specifically, but I think you've narrowed it to between 1 practice and 4 games.

As far as the Mike Holmgren's business comment...you should watch Fletch again. Great movie. Maybe you need a refresher course.

[daddywags]

MS - Let me put it this way: If Mike Holmgren needs another 4 or 5 starts to figure out whether McCoy is a legit NFL QB or not (and I don't think he does) then he's really no better at judging QBs than you or me or a thousand other Browns fans who can do that after they've started 7 games.

I think he's better than that. At least, I hope he is.

[motherscratcher]

MS - Let me put it this way: If Mike Holmgren needs another 4 or 5 starts to figure out whether McCoy is a legit NFL QB or not (and I don't think he does) then he's really no better at judging QBs than you or me or a thousand other Browns fans who can do that after they've started 7 games.

I think he's better than that. At least, I hope he is.

You're probably right. I bet he knows more than he's letting on too. He's probably just greasing the skids for his coach to start the rookie some more without too much blow back from the bad ankled vets.

That being said, I don't think it's all just a ruse. If Mike has an idea what the future holds for Colt after 2 starts, I think he'll still have a BETTER idea after 4-5 more, don't you? I mean, how could he not?

Did you watch Fletch yet?

[pup]

You play the guy that gives you the best chance to win, as decided by the trio of Holmgren, Heckert and Mangini.

If it is Seneca Wallace, it is Seneca Wallace. If it is Colt McCoy, it is Colt McCoy. If it is Jake Delhomme, it is Jake Delhomme.

Let's say it is Seneca. And he starts the next 4 games. And they go 3-1 (they aren't but if). You really think ANYONE is going to be upset they didn't get more data on McCoy in the next month? If they go 2-2, McCoy finishes the string.

If it is McCoy, conversation ends. Best of both worlds.

If it is Jake. Drink heavily on Sundays.

[SoulDawg74]

You play the guy that gives you the best chance to win, as decided by the trio of Holmgren, Heckert and Mangini.

If it is Seneca Wallace, it is Seneca Wallace. If it is Colt McCoy, it is Colt McCoy. If it is Jake Delhomme, it is Jake Delhomme.

Let's say it is Seneca. And he starts the next 4 games. And they go 3-1 (they aren't but if). You really think ANYONE is going to be upset they didn't get more data on McCoy in the next month? If they go 2-2, McCoy finishes the string.

If it is McCoy, conversation ends. Best of both worlds.

If it is Jake. Drink heavily on Sundays.

SD:

Your playing checkers pup, while Mike is playing chess,

Reread the part where he tells ya we have a chance because of circumstance (Jake and Senecas injuries being a blessing in disquise)to see what we have at the QB position with our youngin proir to next years draft where we're contemplating a high number one expenditure at that position.

Then Glom Lerners comments on the issue about the risks of expending resources at QB next year , .

1 + 1 Still equals two , you don't even have to take your shoes off to count this one.

SoulDawg

[motherscratcher]

You play the guy that gives you the best chance to win, as decided by the trio of Holmgren, Heckert and Mangini.

If it is Seneca Wallace, it is Seneca Wallace. If it is Colt McCoy, it is Colt McCoy. If it is Jake Delhomme, it is Jake Delhomme.

Let's say it is Seneca. And he starts the next 4 games. And they go 3-1 (they aren't but if). You really think ANYONE is going to be upset they didn't get more data on McCoy in the next month? If they go 2-2, McCoy finishes the string.

If it is McCoy, conversation ends. Best of both worlds.

If it is Jake. Drink heavily on Sundays.

It's 2-2 that scares me the most. Depending on how Seneca looks during those games, I think you might be underestimating how much more difficult it would be sit the him in favor of Colt after a mediocre stretch like that.

They have an opportunity to see what they've got right now, and I'll be surprised if they don't take it.

In a vacuum you're right, they should play whoever gives them the best chance to win. But, I don't think that even if the guy is Seneca, he gives them a better chance to a significant enough degree that it warrants passing up Colt.

And, I don't need Jake to drink heavily on Sundays.

[That_Guy™]

This is the key to continuous improvement and can be applied to any circumstance. Right now we're in the Check phase.

Plan: Improve the QB situation
Do: Draft Colt
Check: Give Colt enough starts to for a more complete evaluation of his talent
Act: This will be the roster moves at the end of the season and in the draft whick leads right into the next..

Plan...Do...Check...Act

No effective leader would create a plan for improvement without verifying that the plan is working along the way.

We can't plan for tomorrow until we know the result of yesterday's plan.

[motherscratcher]

Yeah, synergism.


lol...gism

[aoxo1]

paradigm

[JCoz]

Personally, I don't think Delhomme brings anything to the table that the other 2 can't call and raise.

But that's just me. What matters is what Mangini and Holmgren think.

Mangini will never tell us. Holmgren had this piece in the PD:

In an interview in Sunday's Plain Dealer, Holmgren indicated a desire and responsibility to evaluate McCoy to make a conclusion on whether another quarterback needs to be drafted next year. He said he would have a better idea on McCoy "if he were able to play four or five games."

So I guess we know who Holmgren thinks should play.

So, if McCoy isn't already Mangini's choice, he's got 2 choices:

1. Play the guy that his boss wants him to play and hope that he'll be around next year to reap the rewards of finding out now whether or not Colt might be the Franchise QB.

I agree. how would Mangini's job be any more in jeopardy by playing Colt McCoy, which is what the big man wants and has said as much?

Anyways, the upper management here is not in some dark tower, this was sold as an integrated, 3-headed management team, was it not?

So why the hell would Mangini need to make the best decision for HIM as if he was in the dark as to what Heckgren wants and expects?

I just see absolutely no reason why his job would be negatively affected by playing Colt at the present time.

As new data arrives, so may the obvious path moving forward, but as of now, there is no additional risk, IMO for Mangini from up above.

[leadpipe]

ILO the difference between "Veteran and Rookie" is less important than the difference between "Blows and __________.

Look, we all know what Delhomme did to blow the TB game. Then, in KC the guy throws one up for grabs on third and forever, deep in his own territory - but there was half a quarter or so left to punt, then get the ball back - not ideal, but better than throwing the game away. You'd expect the "Veteran" should know this.

Because of the fumble they get the ball back with little time left on the clock, and zero timeouts. Ole' Jake throws the two yard curl in the middle of the field - chewing up half the damn time left. Again, ain't this part of the point of having a "veteran" out there.

So if he blows AND he's doing things no "veteran" should do, I, can't for the life of me, understand why you would run that hump out there for humps sake.

[daddywags]

ILO the difference between "Veteran and Rookie" is less important than the difference between "Blows and __________.

Look, we all know what Delhomme did to blow the TB game. Then, in KC the guy throws one up for grabs on third and forever, deep in his own territory - but there was half a quarter or so left to punt, then get the ball back - not ideal, but better than throwing the game away. You'd expect the "Veteran" should know this.

Because of the fumble they get the ball back with little time left on the clock, and zero timeouts. Ole' Jake throws the two yard curl in the middle of the field - chewing up half the damn time left. Again, ain't this part of the point of having a "veteran" out there.

So if he blows AND he's doing things no "veteran" should do, I, can't for the life of me, understand why you would run that hump out there for humps sake.

Delhomme played in the KC game?

[leadpipe]

ILO the difference between "Veteran and Rookie" is less important than the difference between "Blows and __________.

Look, we all know what Delhomme did to blow the TB game. Then, in KC the guy throws one up for grabs on third and forever, deep in his own territory - but there was half a quarter or so left to punt, then get the ball back - not ideal, but better than throwing the game away. You'd expect the "Veteran" should know this.

Because of the fumble they get the ball back with little time left on the clock, and zero timeouts. Ole' Jake throws the two yard curl in the middle of the field - chewing up half the damn time left. Again, ain't this part of the point of having a "veteran" out there.

So if he blows AND he's doing things no "veteran" should do, I, can't for the life of me, understand why you would run that hump out there for humps sake.

Delhomme played in the KC game?

All the great QB'ing melding together. Correctly stated, the big mistake in the first half of the TB game, and then the 4th quarter shenanigans in the same game.

Different "veteran" QB with the pick 6 in KC.