Browns/Zona

[Fire Marshall Bill]

I know its fashionable to bash McCoy and I'm not trying to say he should or can be the man going forward but....

Red Skelton threw for 313 yds today

[pup]

Just this week:

Matt Ryan beat Blane Gabbert
Tony Romo beat Josh Freeman
Matt Moore beat Ryan Fitzpatrick
Tavaris Jackson beat Caleb Hanie
Cam Newton beat TJ Yates
Dan Orlovsky beat Matt Hasselbeck
Kyle Orton beat Aaron Rogers
Drew Brees beat Christian Ponder
Rex Grossman beat Eli Manning
Andy Dalton beat Kellen Clemens
Matt Stafford beat Carson Palmer
Tom Brady beat Tim Tebow
Mike Vick beat Mark Sanchez
Phil Rivers is beating Joe Flacco
John Skelton beat Seneca Wallace


Not the most scientific of approaches. But in my opinion, the underlined games are what I would consider the better QB winning. The italics are equal QBs and the bold are the better QB losing. Not about to go back and do this on a weekly basis, but I would bet most weeks are like this. And when the QB matchups are "even" I would venture to guess the one that plays better that day wins.

In other words, if you think you are going to win more games than you lose in today's NFL, regardless of any other position on the field, you better have the better QB as often as possible. When your QB is on par with the opposing QB, he better play better than that guy that day. Sure, shit happens and Kyle Orton beats Aaron Rogers.

I am not trading up for Luck or RG3 unless a great deal is offered. We do need too much to combine picks into one pick. Because I am not really worried about using Colt or Seneca next year and with a better team around them they win 7,8,9 games. Because they will probably never be the superior QB enough times to get that done. So you make other things better and lose your 10-12 games next year and you are right there in the thick of things to take whoever the stud QB is in that draft.

[motherscratcher]

I'm not trying to say McCoy is a future Hall-of-Famer, but anyone who thought McCoy was the problem should be a lot more educated now.

holy shitballs. Are you really using the fact that McCoy looks almost axactly the same as Seneca Wallace as some sort of defense of McCoy?

[mattvan1]

So since the Browns still did nothing with Seneca Wallace, it proves the problem is not Colt McCoy?

Are you guys fucking mad? Seneca Wallace is terrible. Being "about the same" as Seneca Wallace gets guys cut from most organizations. It gets someone bronzed around these parts.

I'll take gross over-simplifications for $500, Alex.

I don't think that's it at all. I would repharse to write "All this proves is McCoy is one of the 5,392 problems". While I agree Wallace blows, I really don't see how Brady or Brees or Rodgers does that much more with this shit sandwhich of an offense. It was, for me at least, really interestingto see how ANYONE, including a carrer backup, ran this scheme. I was never a McCoy fanboi, but I would like to think I know a bit about what I am watching. And all year I listened to how it was all on the QB, for mega reasons. All this time I'm thinking "seems like a 3 yard qucik slant on 3rd and 10 isn't going to net a first down but I guess it must be McCoy's fault." Receivers are running free and Colt holds the ball too long and doesn't go through his progressions and locks on and doesn't have an arm and blah blah blah fucking blah.

Turns out Wallace looks pretty much the same. A guy who has run the same fucking O for 6 years. So they both suck - as pretty much everyone felt after the bye week.

So who would look good in this offense? I'm beginning to believe it's less about the QB and more about the philosophy.

[pup]

So since the Browns still did nothing with Seneca Wallace, it proves the problem is not Colt McCoy?

Are you guys fucking mad? Seneca Wallace is terrible. Being "about the same" as Seneca Wallace gets guys cut from most organizations. It gets someone bronzed around these parts.

I'll take gross over-simplifications for $500, Alex.

I don't think that's it at all. I would repharse to write "All this proves is McCoy is one of the 5,392 problems". While I agree Wallace blows, I really don't see how Brady or Brees or Rodgers does that much more with this shit sandwhich of an offense. It was, for me at least, really interestingto see how ANYONE, including a carrer backup, ran this scheme. I was never a McCoy fanboi, but I would like to think I know a bit about what I am watching. And all year I listened to how it was all on the QB, for mega reasons. All this time I'm thinking "seems like a 3 yard qucik slant on 3rd and 10 isn't going to net a first down but I guess it must be McCoy's fault." Receivers are running free and Colt holds the ball too long and doesn't go through his progressions and locks on and doesn't have an arm and blah blah blah fucking blah.

Turns out Wallace looks pretty much the same. A guy who has run the same fucking O for 6 years. So they both suck - as pretty much everyone felt after the bye week.

So who would look good in this offense? I'm beginning to believe it's less about the QB and more about the philosophy.

Really?

Who would look better?

Rogers, Brady, Brees, Rothlisberger, Vick, Stafford, Ryan, Romo, Rivers. For sure.

Not even a discussion. That is about 1/3 of the league. Without consider the Manning brothers.

I could be wrong, but fuck would I like to find out. Like I said, I am OK with not overpaying to move up. But if they think RG3 or Barkley fits on the above list, they HAVE to take them. Because Colt McCoy, or someone they grab after the top 5 pick are in all likelihood never going to.

[mattvan1]

Rogers, Brady, Brees, Rothlisberger, Vick, Stafford, Ryan, Romo, Rivers. For sure.

Not even a discussion. That is about 1/3 of the league. Without consider the Manning brothers.

I could be wrong, but fuck would I like to find out. Like I said, I am OK with not overpaying to move up. But if they think RG3 or Barkley fits on the above list, they HAVE to take them. Because Colt McCoy, or someone they grab after the top 5 pick are in all likelihood never going to.

Don't mis understand me - I am 100% in favor of getting a QB ASAP. Just saying that the 1980's called, and they want their offense back. BTW, really not sure any of those cats you mention look any better than Wallace did today. Not that they are not 1,000 times better than what we have, but I really didn't see what else Wallce could have done today that would have made a difference.

We have no talent.

At all.

As much I would love to draft RG3 - there is no magic bullet.

[bookelly]

Rogers, Brady, Brees, Rothlisberger, Vick, Stafford, Ryan, Romo, Rivers. For sure.

Not even a discussion. That is about 1/3 of the league. Without consider the Manning brothers.

I could be wrong, but fuck would I like to find out. Like I said, I am OK with not overpaying to move up. But if they think RG3 or Barkley fits on the above list, they HAVE to take them. Because Colt McCoy, or someone they grab after the top 5 pick are in all likelihood never going to.

Don't mis understand me - I am 100% in favor of getting a QB ASAP. Just saying that the 1980's called, and they want their offense back. BTW, really not sure any of those cats you mention look any better than Wallace did today. Not that they are not 1,000 times better trhan what we have, but I really didn't see what else Wallce could have done today that would have made a difference.

We have no talent.

There's talent everywhere. The coach has no clue. Jesus Christ and his entourage couldn't win with SHUR as HC. RG3 would be great. But until SHUR stops the Leslo in clutch situation we ani't winning shit.

At all.

As much I would love to draft RG3 - there is no magic bullet.

[pup]

Rogers, Brady, Brees, Rothlisberger, Vick, Stafford, Ryan, Romo, Rivers. For sure.

Not even a discussion. That is about 1/3 of the league. Without consider the Manning brothers.

I could be wrong, but fuck would I like to find out. Like I said, I am OK with not overpaying to move up. But if they think RG3 or Barkley fits on the above list, they HAVE to take them. Because Colt McCoy, or someone they grab after the top 5 pick are in all likelihood never going to.

Don't mis understand me - I am 100% in favor of getting a QB ASAP. Just saying that the 1980's called, and they want their offense back. BTW, really not sure any of those cats you mention look any better than Wallace did today. Not that they are not 1,000 times better than what we have, but I really didn't see what else Wallce could have done today that would have made a difference.

We have no talent.

At all.

As much I would love to draft RG3 - there is no magic bullet.

I think this is where a lot of the disconnect in these conversations happen. I do not think RG3 is coming into town and taking us to the Bowl.

What I am saying is you are never getting there without QB X. So if you do not have QB X, you need to get QB X. Not at the expense of the rest of the team though. I wouldn't advocate trading up for Luck even if you told me he WAS Tom Brady. But I would not pass on ANYONE that even has the potential to be QB X if i did not currently have a guy with that potential. Even Barkley. Is he that guy? I am not sure. But if he might be, I take him.

You can fill in every other position in the NFL through later draft picks and free agency. Except stud QB. So you have to fire a bullet every time you have one in search of that guy. Then you have to be quick to evaluate that guy and know within a 2 seasons if he is worth hitching your wagon to.

[mattvan1]

Rogers, Brady, Brees, Rothlisberger, Vick, Stafford, Ryan, Romo, Rivers. For sure.

Not even a discussion. That is about 1/3 of the league. Without consider the Manning brothers.

I could be wrong, but fuck would I like to find out. Like I said, I am OK with not overpaying to move up. But if they think RG3 or Barkley fits on the above list, they HAVE to take them. Because Colt McCoy, or someone they grab after the top 5 pick are in all likelihood never going to.

Don't mis understand me - I am 100% in favor of getting a QB ASAP. Just saying that the 1980's called, and they want their offense back. BTW, really not sure any of those cats you mention look any better than Wallace did today. Not that they are not 1,000 times better than what we have, but I really didn't see what else Wallce could have done today that would have made a difference.

We have no talent.

At all.

As much I would love to draft RG3 - there is no magic bullet.

I think this is where a lot of the disconnect in these conversations happen. I do not think RG3 is coming into town and taking us to the Bowl.

What I am saying is you are never getting there without QB X. So if you do not have QB X, you need to get QB X. Not at the expense of the rest of the team though. I wouldn't advocate trading up for Luck even if you told me he WAS Tom Brady. But I would not pass on ANYONE that even has the potential to be QB X if i did not currently have a guy with that potential. Even Barkley. Is he that guy? I am not sure. But if he might be, I take him.

You can fill in every other position in the NFL through later draft picks and free agency. Except stud QB. So you have to fire a bullet every time you have one in search of that guy. Then you have to be quick to evaluate that guy and know within a 2 seasons if he is worth hitching your wagon to.

Agree 100%

[Hikohadon]

Rogers, Brady, Brees, Rothlisberger, Vick, Stafford, Ryan, Romo, Rivers. For sure.

Not even a discussion. That is about 1/3 of the league. Without consider the Manning brothers.

I could be wrong, but fuck would I like to find out. Like I said, I am OK with not overpaying to move up. But if they think RG3 or Barkley fits on the above list, they HAVE to take them. Because Colt McCoy, or someone they grab after the top 5 pick are in all likelihood never going to.

Don't mis understand me - I am 100% in favor of getting a QB ASAP. Just saying that the 1980's called, and they want their offense back. BTW, really not sure any of those cats you mention look any better than Wallace did today. Not that they are not 1,000 times better than what we have, but I really didn't see what else Wallce could have done today that would have made a difference.

We have no talent.

At all.

As much I would love to draft RG3 - there is no magic bullet.

I think this is where a lot of the disconnect in these conversations happen. I do not think RG3 is coming into town and taking us to the Bowl.

What I am saying is you are never getting there without QB X. So if you do not have QB X, you need to get QB X. Not at the expense of the rest of the team though. I wouldn't advocate trading up for Luck even if you told me he WAS Tom Brady. But I would not pass on ANYONE that even has the potential to be QB X if i did not currently have a guy with that potential. Even Barkley. Is he that guy? I am not sure. But if he might be, I take him.

You can fill in every other position in the NFL through later draft picks and free agency. Except stud QB. So you have to fire a bullet every time you have one in search of that guy. Then you have to be quick to evaluate that guy and know within a 2 seasons if he is worth hitching your wagon to.

Agree 100%

Here is the simple truth:

Colt McCoy is not a starting QB in this league.

Seneca Wallace is a solid career backup. He's a great #2, but he'll NEVER be a #1.

There's no starting QB on this team.

The Browns will be in position to take one of those top-tier QB's. No matter how bad you are, it's hard to get in the Top 5. If you're there and you don't have a QB, then there had better be Nd Suh if you think it OK to pass on QB.

They had better fucking take a QB or they should be flayed and raped by rhinos.

[DrPoove]

So since the Browns still did nothing with Seneca Wallace, it proves the problem is not Colt McCoy?

Are you guys fucking mad? Seneca Wallace is terrible. Being "about the same" as Seneca Wallace gets guys cut from most organizations. It gets someone bronzed around these parts.

Was wonderin' when someone was gonna bring this up.

Christ, if you're goal is to stick in the league, one of the comparisons you DON'T want is Seneca Wallace. Cause he stinks.

Yeah, more athletic. But still stinks.

And I'm not sure where all the "TOLD YOU COLT'S NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM" guys are really comin' from. Very few here have claimed that. I think the majority are along the lines of Colt kinda being lukewarm, and not really showing us anything special we can hang a hat on.

Personally, I've seen a full season worth of starts, and I'm not sure I could tell you what the guy does WELL. And I understand the supporting cast, and the organization that checks him in eyes a glaze, but at some point I gotta se a little sumpin' sumpin'.

And it was like old times in that Packers Chiefs tilt, when ole' Romeo threw the challenge flag when his receiver was ruled out of bounds. Guy had one foot in and one foot in the 3rd row of the bleachers and Romey chucked it on out there.

The point of pointing out that Colt McCoy is not the only problem with this offense is due to the fact that all week we have been hearing the "I want to see what this offense looks like under Seneca Wallace" crowd that has been on the radio, print, message boards and the city of Cleveland in general.

Well guess what, it doesn't look all that much better.

As you said, both guys are not good, starting quality NFL QBs. Seneca Wallace never was and I doubt Colt McCoy will ever be.

But with all the other "crap" on the offensive side of the ball it's not going to be all that much different with anyone else unless they fix some glaring issues (RT, running game, play calling) concurrently.

Would a better QB upgrade the offense, maybe even significantly? Yes.

But the odds of that are much slimmer unless all of the other issues that have been here circa 1999 still remain.

My 10 pesos.

[Hikohadon]

So since the Browns still did nothing with Seneca Wallace, it proves the problem is not Colt McCoy?

Are you guys fucking mad? Seneca Wallace is terrible. Being "about the same" as Seneca Wallace gets guys cut from most organizations. It gets someone bronzed around these parts.

Was wonderin' when someone was gonna bring this up.

Christ, if you're goal is to stick in the league, one of the comparisons you DON'T want is Seneca Wallace. Cause he stinks.

Yeah, more athletic. But still stinks.

And I'm not sure where all the "TOLD YOU COLT'S NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM" guys are really comin' from. Very few here have claimed that. I think the majority are along the lines of Colt kinda being lukewarm, and not really showing us anything special we can hang a hat on.

Personally, I've seen a full season worth of starts, and I'm not sure I could tell you what the guy does WELL. And I understand the supporting cast, and the organization that checks him in eyes a glaze, but at some point I gotta se a little sumpin' sumpin'.

And it was like old times in that Packers Chiefs tilt, when ole' Romeo threw the challenge flag when his receiver was ruled out of bounds. Guy had one foot in and one foot in the 3rd row of the bleachers and Romey chucked it on out there.

The point of pointing out that Colt McCoy is not the only problem with this offense is due to the fact that all week we have been hearing the "I want to see what this offense looks like under Seneca Wallace" crowd that has been on the radio, print, message boards and the city of Cleveland in general.

Well guess what, it doesn't look all that much better.

As you said, both guys are not good, starting quality NFL QBs. Seneca Wallace never was and I doubt Colt McCoy will ever be.

But with all the other "crap" on the offensive side of the ball it's not going to be all that much different with anyone else unless they fix some glaring issues (RT, running game, play calling) concurrently.

Would a better QB upgrade the offense, maybe even significantly? Yes.

But the odds of that are much slimmer unless all of the other issues that have been here circa 1999 still remain.

My 10 pesos.

This issue is as simple as this:

1. Is Colt McCoy good enough to lead the Browns to a Super Bowl Championship?

2. If I answered "Yes" to question 1, have I inadvertently overdosed on something?

3. If I don't really believe Colt is good enough to win a Championship, what reason do I have to still support his starting QB job other than I think he is super-cute or I'm a slightly-functioning alcoholic?

Reality bites:

1. Browns O line is probably not that bad. A bad QB can make a mediocre line look horrible.

2. Browns playmakers are probably not that deficient. Notice that Greg Little TD today? Imagine he had a semi-decent QB for the last 14 games.

3. Oh, and shocking how the Browns have a decent running game when D's can't stack the line b/c they think your QB can't throw the ball more than 20 yard down the field.

In the end, Seneca didn't look all that much better than McCoy. But he didn't look worse either. The fact that Colt could be so easily replaced by a career backup tells me all I need to know about Doe Eyes.

[pup]

The Browns have sucked since 1999 for a lot of reasons.

Shitty QBs are at the top of the list. The very top. Above shitty coaches, GMs, owners, RT, LB.....................................

They have gotten competent QB play in a couple of seasons. And they weren't half bad when they did.

[bookelly]

If you're out of the playoffs, why would you want to win? As I said upthread, play good enough to keep your job but just bad enough to lose.

I smell sandbagging.

And I will welcome RG3 as my Jebus.

[mattvan1]

This issue is as simple as this:

1. Is Colt McCoy good enough to lead the Browns to a Super Bowl Championship?

2. If I answered "Yes" to question 1, have I inadvertently overdosed on something?

3. If I don't really believe Colt is good enough to win a Championship, what reason do I have to still support his starting QB job other than I think he is super-cute or I'm a slightly-functioning alcoholic?

Reality bites:

1. Browns O line is probably not that bad. A bad QB can make a mediocre line look horrible.

2. Browns playmakers are probably not that deficient. Notice that Greg Little TD today? Imagine he had a semi-decent QB for the last 14 games.

3. Oh, and shocking how the Browns have a decent running game when D's can't stack the line b/c they think your QB can't throw the ball more than 20 yard down the field.

In the end, Seneca didn't look all that much better than McCoy. But he didn't look worse either. The fact that Colt could be so easily replaced by a career backup tells me all I need to know about Doe Eyes.

I think we are pretty much on the same page here but to say Little's TD (when matched up with a LINEBACKER) is proof he has talent is a bit of a stretch.

All I'm saying is the problems are much deeper than having 2 backup QBs.

[leadpipe]

Teams with good quarterbacks tend to get good, and stay that way pretty consistently once they've found that guy.

Teams that don't have that guy might stumble upon a decent season or so, but will usually be pretty bad.

It's as simple as that.

The other stuff matters - I understand that, but if you HAVE taht guy, you can build exactly what you want. If you don't have that guy, you're gonna build to PERHAPS the first round of the playoffs - if you're fortunate.

All the shit that's gone on with the Browns, the moronic coaching and lack of talent....ILO if you had a guy that was gonna be the man at that position, I think you win more games the first half of the season. Put an established good QB in there, and keep everything else the same, and you're winning a few more games. Doesn't mean the team wouldn't still blow, just the way that position works.

[Triple-S]

Rooney to Modell, when Art begged him for his reason for success

"Coach and Quarterback". About the only team I can think of in the past 40+ years of the Super Bowl that really didn't win with either both or at least one? 2000 Baltimore Ravens. And being real? with more competent QB play they really should have another Trophy up in the case.

So, for those begging for us to take anything but that position and expect to be even at least a playoff team with a shitty head coach and a backup QB, unless you've got Baltimore's FO it ain't happening.

Another great point that was made on the radio? The list of QB's drafted in the First round that have been successful far outweighs those that were drafted after the fact.

Now, don't take one just to take one, but if you can see that RGIII or even Barkley fits the mold you want, and you can surround him with some better talent, than by all means, take him.

[Hikohadon]

All I'm saying is the problems are much deeper than having 2 backup QBs.

Wholeheartedly agree.

But having 2 backup QBs is probably their biggest problem.

[mistero]

Why the angst? The outcome was the best case scenario. We played a close game. Wallace made some big plays. We lost. Miami and Washington won. Great week end! Come to Daddy RG3 or Barkley.

[justmebd]

I'm not trying to say McCoy is a future Hall-of-Famer, but anyone who thought McCoy was the problem should be a lot more educated now.

holy shitballs. Are you really using the fact that McCoy looks almost axactly the same as Seneca Wallace as some sort of defense of McCoy?

No. Keep reading. I said anyone who thought McCoy was the problem should get their head out of their ass.

The front office is the problem and you could put Luck, RG3 or whoever behind center and this front office would find a way to cock it up. Nothing will change until there is accountability from top to bottom.

As long as Holmgren can keep cashing Lerner's paychecks with no risk of being called on the carpet for one bad decision after another, you may as well put me in at QB. The results will be about the same.

[justmebd]

The point of pointing out that Colt McCoy is not the only problem with this offense is due to the fact that all week we have been hearing the "I want to see what this offense looks like under Seneca Wallace" crowd that has been on the radio, print, message boards and the city of Cleveland in general.

Well guess what, it doesn't look all that much better.[/quote]

THIS

[pup]

The point of pointing out that Colt McCoy is not the only problem with this offense is due to the fact that all week we have been hearing the "I want to see what this offense looks like under Seneca Wallace" crowd that has been on the radio, print, message boards and the city of Cleveland in general.

Well guess what, it doesn't look all that much better.

THIS[/quote]

It still is not about if they looked better. It is 100% that they did not look worse. And when your starter and the future are no better than the 40th best QB in the NFL...well. Starting to comprehend this at all?

You either have an embarrassment of riches or your starter sucks if your backup can step in and you see no drop off. Be the first time someone accused this franchise of the first option.

[leadpipe]

The point of pointing out that Colt McCoy is not the only problem with this offense is due to the fact that all week we have been hearing the "I want to see what this offense looks like under Seneca Wallace" crowd that has been on the radio, print, message boards and the city of Cleveland in general.

Well guess what, it doesn't look all that much better.

THIS[/quote]

Outside of Mr. Seneca Wallace and perhaps his parents, nobody want to see what an offense looks like under Seneca Wallace.

you got guys choosing between the chair and firing squad.

And if your team looks as good with the back-up in, you aren't fortunate, you're up the shit crick.

Half empty/half full I suppose, but I'd be hard pressed to find much evidence you REALLY WIN with either of em.'

[DrPoove]

So since the Browns still did nothing with Seneca Wallace, it proves the problem is not Colt McCoy?

Are you guys fucking mad? Seneca Wallace is terrible. Being "about the same" as Seneca Wallace gets guys cut from most organizations. It gets someone bronzed around these parts.

Was wonderin' when someone was gonna bring this up.

Christ, if you're goal is to stick in the league, one of the comparisons you DON'T want is Seneca Wallace. Cause he stinks.

Yeah, more athletic. But still stinks.

And I'm not sure where all the "TOLD YOU COLT'S NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM" guys are really comin' from. Very few here have claimed that. I think the majority are along the lines of Colt kinda being lukewarm, and not really showing us anything special we can hang a hat on.

Personally, I've seen a full season worth of starts, and I'm not sure I could tell you what the guy does WELL. And I understand the supporting cast, and the organization that checks him in eyes a glaze, but at some point I gotta se a little sumpin' sumpin'.

And it was like old times in that Packers Chiefs tilt, when ole' Romeo threw the challenge flag when his receiver was ruled out of bounds. Guy had one foot in and one foot in the 3rd row of the bleachers and Romey chucked it on out there.

The point of pointing out that Colt McCoy is not the only problem with this offense is due to the fact that all week we have been hearing the "I want to see what this offense looks like under Seneca Wallace" crowd that has been on the radio, print, message boards and the city of Cleveland in general.

Well guess what, it doesn't look all that much better.

As you said, both guys are not good, starting quality NFL QBs. Seneca Wallace never was and I doubt Colt McCoy will ever be.

But with all the other "crap" on the offensive side of the ball it's not going to be all that much different with anyone else unless they fix some glaring issues (RT, running game, play calling) concurrently.

Would a better QB upgrade the offense, maybe even significantly? Yes.

But the odds of that are much slimmer unless all of the other issues that have been here circa 1999 still remain.

My 10 pesos.

This issue is as simple as this:

1. Is Colt McCoy good enough to lead the Browns to a Super Bowl Championship?

2. If I answered "Yes" to question 1, have I inadvertently overdosed on something?

3. If I don't really believe Colt is good enough to win a Championship, what reason do I have to still support his starting QB job other than I think he is super-cute or I'm a slightly-functioning alcoholic?

Reality bites:

1. Browns O line is probably not that bad. A bad QB can make a mediocre line look horrible.

2. Browns playmakers are probably not that deficient. Notice that Greg Little TD today? Imagine he had a semi-decent QB for the last 14 games.

3. Oh, and shocking how the Browns have a decent running game when D's can't stack the line b/c they think your QB can't throw the ball more than 20 yard down the field.

In the end, Seneca didn't look all that much better than McCoy. But he didn't look worse either. The fact that Colt could be so easily replaced by a career backup tells me all I need to know about Doe Eyes.

No shit, Colt McCoy is not good enough to lead this team, or any other team, to the Super Bowl.

However, if you think the Browns O Line is probably not that bad than you have not been watch Tony F'n Pashos for the past 7 years. Horrible FA signing. Horrible.

Do they need a QB? Fuck yeah. But they also need another WR and RB (two if they don't resign Hillis).

Coly McCoy sucks. But if one doesn't think they need some other pieces than yes, one might be "indavertantly overdosed" or a "slightly-functioning alcoholic".

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Meh to alomost all the above

If the Browns play D in crunch time they win

Draft Morris Claiborne and he becomes the best player in the Browns defensive backfield the moment he steps onto the field

Vontaze Burifict with the 2nd #1 pick because we need an assassin at LB and I swear to God Almighty Himself if we don't draft him the Squealers or Crows will and he'll be an axe in our livers for 12 yrs like Terrell Suggs and Ed Reed

I'm all over Devon Still with that 2nd 1st too. I drool over him palying next to Taylor...either/or

RG or RT in Rd 2

McCoy was to sit his first couple yrs and the words came directly from Holmgrens fat mouth...instead, he's played for a yr & 1/2

He'll get next yr just because....just because there were too many dropped passes ...Holmgren mentioned this as well as snapping the damn ball correctly

There have been too many mistakes that were not his doing and I believe film shows hudreds of yds left on the field as well as a couple wins

...and anyone who thought this team should have played or looked better than it has been delerious since game 1

Someone needs to find the "define a successful season for Colt McCoy" thread so peeps can come correct on their expectations

My take was merely his survival till next season cuz I saw the lack of trees in the forest

The lack of commitment by Walrus the other day as relates to Jackson and Dawson is also meaningless to me other than to send a message to McCoys stupid assed old man...besides, that just makes 49 other guys he didn't commit to either...not just McCoy

Do they have enuff to evaluate McCoy---yes...just as they have enuff to evaluate every other player on the team after 14 games..

BTW...was there a Hardesty sighting yesterday?

[pod2dawg]

We're feelin it. We got two back-up QB's....and a horrid R side of O line = whomever we get at QB better be able to scramble like his hair is on fire ( see yesterday performance), barring of course upgrades at right side O line and running back. Sprinkle in a real WR.

Only two more to lose and we got a shot @ the 4th pick. We have 7 picks in the first 4 rounds this year. 2 years brothers...there is no quick fix for this abyss that was dug by those idiots when we first came back.

[Gradysmanldy]

Wonder if we'll get a Mcnabb-esque section of fans booing if we trade down or select a lineman with that #4 pick.

[Hikohadon]

No shit, Colt McCoy is not good enough to lead this team, or any other team, to the Super Bowl.

However, if you think the Browns O Line is probably not that bad than you have not been watch Tony F'n Pashos for the past 7 years. Horrible FA signing. Horrible.

Do they need a QB? Fuck yeah. But they also need another WR and RB (two if they don't resign Hillis).

Coly McCoy sucks. But if one doesn't think they need some other pieces than yes, one might be "indavertantly overdosed" or a "slightly-functioning alcoholic".

Find me one spot where I claim that the Browns ONLY need a QB. No fucking shit they need more than just the QB. They need a lot. Drafting a QB will not be a cure-all.

But of their many deficiencies, QB remains the biggest because it is the most important position on the field. It's more important than RT, it's more important than CB, it's more important than WR. So QB is the position that would be best served to be filled with that Top 5 pick b/c of the value of the top QB prospects.

I don't even know what the argument is about. If we all agree that Colt isn't good enough to get it done, then he needs to be replaced. Period.

That doesn't preclude the Browns from also trying to improve the other areas.

[JCoz]

No shit, Colt McCoy is not good enough to lead this team, or any other team, to the Super Bowl.

However, if you think the Browns O Line is probably not that bad than you have not been watch Tony F'n Pashos for the past 7 years. Horrible FA signing. Horrible.

Do they need a QB? Fuck yeah. But they also need another WR and RB (two if they don't resign Hillis).

Coly McCoy sucks. But if one doesn't think they need some other pieces than yes, one might be "indavertantly overdosed" or a "slightly-functioning alcoholic".

Find me one spot where I claim that the Browns ONLY need a QB. No fucking shit they need more than just the QB. They need a lot. Drafting a QB will not be a cure-all.

But of their many deficiencies, QB remains the biggest because it is the most important position on the field. It's more important than RT, it's more important than CB, it's more important than WR. So QB is the position that would be best served to be filled with that Top 5 pick b/c of the value of the top QB prospects.

I don't even know what the argument is about. If we all agree that Colt isn't good enough to get it done, then he needs to be replaced. Period.

That doesn't preclude the Browns from also trying to improve the other areas.

So Browns are on the clock @#4 with RG3 and Luck off the board....Hiko selects?

[Hikohadon]

No shit, Colt McCoy is not good enough to lead this team, or any other team, to the Super Bowl.

However, if you think the Browns O Line is probably not that bad than you have not been watch Tony F'n Pashos for the past 7 years. Horrible FA signing. Horrible.

Do they need a QB? Fuck yeah. But they also need another WR and RB (two if they don't resign Hillis).

Coly McCoy sucks. But if one doesn't think they need some other pieces than yes, one might be "indavertantly overdosed" or a "slightly-functioning alcoholic".

Find me one spot where I claim that the Browns ONLY need a QB. No fucking shit they need more than just the QB. They need a lot. Drafting a QB will not be a cure-all.

But of their many deficiencies, QB remains the biggest because it is the most important position on the field. It's more important than RT, it's more important than CB, it's more important than WR. So QB is the position that would be best served to be filled with that Top 5 pick b/c of the value of the top QB prospects.

I don't even know what the argument is about. If we all agree that Colt isn't good enough to get it done, then he needs to be replaced. Period.

That doesn't preclude the Browns from also trying to improve the other areas.

So Browns are on the clock @#4 with RG3 and Luck off the board....Hiko selects?

Justin Blackmon.

[pup]

No shit, Colt McCoy is not good enough to lead this team, or any other team, to the Super Bowl.

However, if you think the Browns O Line is probably not that bad than you have not been watch Tony F'n Pashos for the past 7 years. Horrible FA signing. Horrible.

Do they need a QB? Fuck yeah. But they also need another WR and RB (two if they don't resign Hillis).

Coly McCoy sucks. But if one doesn't think they need some other pieces than yes, one might be "indavertantly overdosed" or a "slightly-functioning alcoholic".

Find me one spot where I claim that the Browns ONLY need a QB. No fucking shit they need more than just the QB. They need a lot. Drafting a QB will not be a cure-all.

But of their many deficiencies, QB remains the biggest because it is the most important position on the field. It's more important than RT, it's more important than CB, it's more important than WR. So QB is the position that would be best served to be filled with that Top 5 pick b/c of the value of the top QB prospects.

I don't even know what the argument is about. If we all agree that Colt isn't good enough to get it done, then he needs to be replaced. Period.

That doesn't preclude the Browns from also trying to improve the other areas.

So Browns are on the clock @#4 with RG3 and Luck off the board....Hiko selects?

Not that you asked, but Barkley.

[Hikohadon]

No shit, Colt McCoy is not good enough to lead this team, or any other team, to the Super Bowl.

However, if you think the Browns O Line is probably not that bad than you have not been watch Tony F'n Pashos for the past 7 years. Horrible FA signing. Horrible.

Do they need a QB? Fuck yeah. But they also need another WR and RB (two if they don't resign Hillis).

Coly McCoy sucks. But if one doesn't think they need some other pieces than yes, one might be "indavertantly overdosed" or a "slightly-functioning alcoholic".

Find me one spot where I claim that the Browns ONLY need a QB. No fucking shit they need more than just the QB. They need a lot. Drafting a QB will not be a cure-all.

But of their many deficiencies, QB remains the biggest because it is the most important position on the field. It's more important than RT, it's more important than CB, it's more important than WR. So QB is the position that would be best served to be filled with that Top 5 pick b/c of the value of the top QB prospects.

I don't even know what the argument is about. If we all agree that Colt isn't good enough to get it done, then he needs to be replaced. Period.

That doesn't preclude the Browns from also trying to improve the other areas.

So Browns are on the clock @#4 with RG3 and Luck off the board....Hiko selects?

Not that you asked, but Barkley.

I'd probably take him if Blackmon were also gone. If RG3 and Luck are indeed gone, there's a lot of guys I could like at that spot, including Claiborne.

[e0y2e3]

No shit, Colt McCoy is not good enough to lead this team, or any other team, to the Super Bowl.

However, if you think the Browns O Line is probably not that bad than you have not been watch Tony F'n Pashos for the past 7 years. Horrible FA signing. Horrible.

Do they need a QB? Fuck yeah. But they also need another WR and RB (two if they don't resign Hillis).

Coly McCoy sucks. But if one doesn't think they need some other pieces than yes, one might be "indavertantly overdosed" or a "slightly-functioning alcoholic".

Find me one spot where I claim that the Browns ONLY need a QB. No fucking shit they need more than just the QB. They need a lot. Drafting a QB will not be a cure-all.

But of their many deficiencies, QB remains the biggest because it is the most important position on the field. It's more important than RT, it's more important than CB, it's more important than WR. So QB is the position that would be best served to be filled with that Top 5 pick b/c of the value of the top QB prospects.

I don't even know what the argument is about. If we all agree that Colt isn't good enough to get it done, then he needs to be replaced. Period.

That doesn't preclude the Browns from also trying to improve the other areas.

I really don't understand how people fail to get this.

In a single year the new rulls in the bullshit NFL every single passing record may be broken due to the league's watered down talent base and need for big offense/rule changes.

The league has been pushed into a spot where QB isn't just the most important position on the field, it is the most important by leaps and bounds.

QUE: AARON ROGERS, KYLE ORTON!@$_)!*()!!!

[swerb]

Yeah, given what the NFL has turned into, it's going to be VERY hard to win a Super Bowl without an offense that can score 25-30 points against good defenses. The days of the Browns wanting and trying to create this smashmouth team built for December weather in Cleveland are over. You gotta be able to throw the ball really well to win a SB these days. It's that simple. You gotta have a good coach. And a great QB.

Browns have needs everywhere. But to pass on a potential franchise QB would be absolute lunacy.

[JCoz]

I agree QB is the biggest need, but at the same time I wouldn't neccessarily want to throw shit at the wall with regards to the position.

I doubt many, if any at all on this board would pass on Luck if we were at #1, so I think with alot of people it isnt that we dont need a QB bad, as much as it is not being sold on the QB's not named Luck.

I'm only just now warmed up to idea of RG3 there, always thought he was a fantastic college player but wasn't neccessarily sold on him as an NFL player. I wonder how many on this board would be for RG3 if Cam hadn't had the year he did....

Barkley is intriguing but I just haven't seen enough of him. For me that he was not accurate enough or did not have the arm was a surprise to hear from people.

I'm starting to like Clayborn there, and I wouldnt send Herkert hate mail for taking Blackmon, Kalil, Richardson or Traded down for someone who did want Barkley, like the Redskins.

[e0y2e3]

RG3 does not play football like Cam did. Please don't say he does. It pisses me off. A lot. I loved Cam as a prospect, but questioned his ability to run an actual offense. RG3 runs a very real offense, progresses on his reads awesomely and only uses his athleticism if he has to.

[JCoz]

RG3 does not play football like Cam did. Please don't say he does. It pisses me off. A lot. I loved Cam as a prospect, but questioned his ability to run an actual offense. RG3 runs a very real offense, progresses on his reads awesomely and only uses his athleticism if he has to.

Not at all what I'm saying E0. You know as well as I do that many Browns fans here and otherwise do not watch CFB, which allows for the lazy comparison to other athletic black quarterbacks. Thats what I'm saying, I think Cam is why many think RG3 is a good idea now.

I agree on what you are saying about RG3, he looks like a great one, I just took a while to come to that conclusion.

I wasn't big on Cam as a prospect, didnt have very strong opinion either way.

[Triple-S]

Rucker was on the Fan earlier.

Made a good point about how the FO had known the Wallace was the best QB on the roster, but had used this season purely as an evaluation to determine whether or not McCoy was a Franchise guy.

He's not, and this team is so far off talent wise that we can't afford to pray to god that we land in an Alex Smith with the '9ers situation.

BTW, as far as I'm concerned, we've found a veteran backup QB in Seneca Wallace. Which is a very good thing.

[Hikohadon]

Rucker was on the Fan earlier.

Made a good point about how the FO had known the Wallace was the best QB on the roster, but had used this season purely as an evaluation to determine whether or not McCoy was a Franchise guy.

He's not, and this team is so far off talent wise that we can't afford to pray to god that we land in an Alex Smith with the '9ers situation.

I'm sure that is the case. If they were making a SB run, then Seneca would've been the choice (of the 2). But since they weren't, you definitely take a long look at McCoy to see if he might evolve into something > Seneca. Cuz you already know what you've got in Wallace.

BTW - I don't want to be in an Alex Smith with the '9ers situation. Smith is good enough to get them to the playoffs, and that's about it. They ain't winning a ring with Alex Smith under center. These Alex Smith/Joe Flacco/Mark Sanchez QB's are good enough to keep their jobs, but not good enough to win it all. In the long run they do more harm than good.

[Triple-S]

I'm sure that is the case. If they were making a SB run, then Seneca would've been the choice (of the 2). But since they weren't, you definitely take a long look at McCoy to see if he might evolve into something > Seneca. Cuz you already know what you've got in Wallace.

BTW - I don't want to be in an Alex Smith with the '9ers situation. Smith is good enough to get them to the playoffs, and that's about it. They ain't winning a ring with Alex Smith under center. These Alex Smith/Joe Flacco/Mark Sanchez QB's are good enough to keep their jobs, but not good enough to win it all. In the long run they do more harm than good.

I don't fault the franchise in this regard. You said it earlier in the year, If Colt wanted the job he could play the team out of drafting in the top 5. He didn't. If we're at around 7 wins at the moment, we're not discussing RG3 (save for SoulDawg). We're talking LB and WR.

And agreed with the '9ers. No way they make it past their first game in the playoffs.

[FUDU]

Hiko, more harm than good?, in the sense that they win you 10-11 games and give you a chance at representing the conference in a SB or that they win you 10-11 games and keep you low enough in the draft as to not have a shot at THE GUY.

[e0y2e3]

Hiko, more harm than good?, in the sense that they win you 10-11 games and give you a chance at representing the conference in a SB or that they win you 10-11 games and keep you low enough in the draft as to not have a shot at THE GUY.

How are these two things not one in the same?

[Hikohadon]

Hiko, more harm than good?, in the sense that they win you 10-11 games and give you a chance at representing the conference in a SB or that they win you 10-11 games and keep you low enough in the draft as to not have a shot at THE GUY.

They win you 10-11 games, get you to the playoffs, get you thinking "This is the year they finally break through", then fail again. But they were good enough to get you there in the first place, so you can't outright dump them. And you're drafting too low to get a sure-fire replacement anyway.

Carson Palmer, perfect example.

[Triple-S]

Carson Palmer, perfect example.

Hypothetical.

Kimo Von Olhoffen doesn't break the guys leg.

Do the Bengals beat the Inbred, and Palmer is a different QB?

[Hikohadon]

Carson Palmer, perfect example.

Hypothetical.

Kimo Von Olhoffen doesn't break the guys leg.

Do the Bengals beat the Inbred, and Palmer is a different QB?

I doubt it, but who's to know? In the end, he is what he is - not good enough.

[FUDU]

Right eye one in the same, point being at some point in time an org has to run with the good QB they have and live with the end results if they are not willing to pull off a blockbuster move to obtain the next great QB. For me I'm not willing to lose long term for the sake of the chase of the elusive great QB.

[mattvan1]

For me I'm not willing to lose long term for the sake of the chase of the elusive great QB.

Is 1999-2011 considered long term?

[Hikohadon]

Right eye one in the same, point being at some point in time an org has to run with the good QB they have and live with the end results if they are not willing to pull off a blockbuster move to obtain the next great QB. For me I'm not willing to lose long term for the sake of the chase of the elusive great QB.

If you have a Flacco or a Sanchez or a Palmer, you're forced to roll with them b/c they are good enough that if they were just consistent, they could win a SB.

But after a while if it looks like they're just not gonna get it done, you look to upgrade that position just like you would any other. But that's the hardest position to upgrade.

That's why it's vital to take an elite QB prospect if he's available to you and you don't already have one. It's not easy to be in position to take those guys b/c they are in such high demand.

I get the sense that some people don't want to take the inherent risk involved with taking a QB high, that they'd be more than fine with rolling with a decent QB that has almost zero chance of winning a championship but would at least bring us some wins and a couple playoff appearances and make the product at least watchable.

We've been reduced to being satisfied with merely not-too-shabby.

Not me. I want the freakin' parade.

[mattvan1]

Right eye one in the same, point being at some point in time an org has to run with the good QB they have and live with the end results if they are not willing to pull off a blockbuster move to obtain the next great QB. For me I'm not willing to lose long term for the sake of the chase of the elusive great QB.

If you have a Flacco or a Sanchez or a Palmer, you're forced to roll with them b/c they are good enough that if they were just consistent, they could win a SB.

But after a while if it looks like they're just not gonna get it done, you look to upgrade that position just like you would any other. But that's the hardest position to upgrade.

That's why it's vital to take an elite QB prospect if he's available to you and you don't already have one. It's not easy to be in position to take those guys b/c they are in such high demand.

I get the sense that some people don't want to take the inherent risk involved with taking a QB high, that they'd be more than fine with rolling with a decent QB that has almost zero chance of winning a championship but would at least bring us some wins and a couple playoff appearances and make the product at least watchable.

We've been reduced to being satisfied with merely not-too-shabby.

Not me. I want the freakin' parade.

Good thoughts, which sum up the current dilemma of the NFL. Way OT, but the suits in NY have to realize that the NFL is on the road to being the NBA if the league does not roll back the O friendly rules and make it possible to not only compete but win a sausage with a QB who is not a first ballot HOF'er? I mean they have to see this, no?

[FUDU]

Right eye one in the same, point being at some point in time an org has to run with the good QB they have and live with the end results if they are not willing to pull off a blockbuster move to obtain the next great QB. For me I'm not willing to lose long term for the sake of the chase of the elusive great QB.

If you have a Flacco or a Sanchez or a Palmer, you're forced to roll with them b/c they are good enough that if they were just consistent, they could win a SB.

But after a while if it looks like they're just not gonna get it done, you look to upgrade that position just like you would any other. But that's the hardest position to upgrade.

That's why it's vital to take an elite QB prospect if he's available to you and you don't already have one. It's not easy to be in position to take those guys b/c they are in such high demand.

I get the sense that some people don't want to take the inherent risk involved with taking a QB high, that they'd be more than fine with rolling with a decent QB that has almost zero chance of winning a championship but would at least bring us some wins and a couple playoff appearances and make the product at least watchable.

We've been reduced to being satisfied with merely not-too-shabby.

Not me. I want the freakin' parade.

I want the parade as well, but I'd have no problem being the Buffalo Bills or Utah Jazz. Having very good to nearly great teams that always have a chance despite not having THE GUY as opposed to having THE GUY with no guarantee of anything.