Brady Quinn - to be dealt in the off-season ? (1 Viewer)

[Ron_Mexico]

By Bill Williamson

The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 11/16/2007

Some have speculated that Brady Quinn will be playing elsewhere next year. When Cleveland moved into the first round to nab the Notre Dame star quarterback, many considered it a major coup.

That was before Derek Anderson started playing. After Charlie Frye flamed out in the first game, and the coaching staff decided Quinn wasn't ready, Anderson was considered a stop-gap option. Now, Anderson, who will be a free agent at the end of this season, might be on the cusp of a big contract. Anderson has been the primary reason the Browns have turned their fortunes around and saved coach Romeo Crennel's job.

Now, the team can't turn to Quinn even though he looked good in the preseason. How can Anderson be denied? Expect Quinn to be shopped in the offseason, possibly garnering a first-round pick. There will be plenty of teams interested, perhaps including Minnesota, Baltimore, Atlanta, Chicago and Carolina.

eom

 

[renesauz]

It's more then a little bit possible they hold on to both of them. I don't think Quinn's contract is killing them on the bench, and it's an unusual luxury to have two starters at the position. If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

 

[SigEp316]

yeah...I could see them slapping the franchise tag on Anderson, even though it would be hella expensive. The get rid of Jamal Lewis and bring in Michael Turner....and out of the blue, the Brown-eyes would have a solid offense in place.

 

[Giants4Life]

Look, Anderson has done a great job. But I want to see him down the stretch.

How will he do in big games?(I assume they'll be in the playoff hunt with such an easy schedule).

Around games 13 and 14, when players really start to tire, will he fall or shine?

I think theres many unanswered questions about Anderson's game before they decide if he's the guy.

 

[Doug B]

Question for Browns fans -- did Anderson show absolutely nothing before Week 2 of this season? Is this Kurt Warner '99 all over again? Or were there signs that Anderson could play?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

This may be true, but dealing Anderson is a much riskier move.The Browns know what they have in Anderson, while Brady Quinn is a complete mystery at this point.

 

[brock]

anderson>>>>>brady

they'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

anderson>>>>>bradythey'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

I would expect a low first, maybe a high second. I just can't see a mid to high first being paid for BQ.

 

[kwantam]

Question for Browns fans -- did Anderson show absolutely nothing before Week 2 of this season? Is this Kurt Warner '99 all over again? Or were there signs that Anderson could play?

From his Wikipedia bio:"He made his first appearance in an NFL regular season game against the Denver Broncos at Browns Stadium, 22 October 2006, taking one snap after Frye was briefly shaken up. His second NFL appearance was more noteworthy. After Frye injured his wrist during the first half of Cleveland's December 3 game against the Kansas City Chiefs, Anderson played the entire second half. He threw his first two NFL touchdown passes in that game, connecting with tight end Steve Heiden twice in the fourth quarter. Anderson also scrambled for 33 yards in overtime, moving the ball from the Kansas City 45-yard line to the 12-yard line, after which the Browns were in easy field goal range. Anderson's play was instrumental in leading the Browns back from a 28-14 deficit to a 31-28 overtime victory."-=kwantam

 

[Verbal Kint]

It's more then a little bit possible they hold on to both of them. I don't think Quinn's contract is killing them on the bench, and it's an unusual luxury to have two starters at the position. If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

Seems to me alot like the Kitna/Palmer situation in Cincinnati Palmer's rookie year. Kitna had a Pro-Bowl, top 5 year. I think the franchise Anderson for a year and bring Quinn along slowly.

 

[TheFanatic]

anderson>>>>>bradythey'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

I would expect a low first, maybe a high second. I just can't see a mid to high first being paid for BQ.

I would bet that they get a first rounder and a player. Maybe a 2nd rounder and a good player....

 

[twitch]

The biggest difference I see between Quinn and Anderson is the fact that one has played, and the other has not. One guy's had an opportunity. The other hasnt. Anderson's completing 56% of his passes. Im thinking Quinn could roll out of bed in the morning and throw for that %. If the Browns can get a 1st round pick to improve their D, I think they need to do it. Quinn is completely unproven. But so was Anderson before this season started. If you can move DA to pick up a #1 and maybe cornerstone Dlineman in the draft, youve gotta do it. I really dont see Cleveland moving Brady Quinn. Period. Look at that worthless suck-butt alma mater he left behind. The kid is going to be a stud. All he needs is a shot.

 

[TheFanatic]

It's more then a little bit possible they hold on to both of them. I don't think Quinn's contract is killing them on the bench, and it's an unusual luxury to have two starters at the position. If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

Seems to me alot like the Kitna/Palmer situation in Cincinnati Palmer's rookie year. Kitna had a Pro-Bowl, top 5 year. I think the franchise Anderson for a year and bring Quinn along slowly.

This is the most likely scenario. Quinn wasn't a top 5 guy so his contract isn't ridiculous like say Phillip Rivers. If the Chargers can keep Brees and Rivers, the Browns can keep Anderson and Quinn....

 

[renesauz]

If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

This may be true, but dealing Anderson is a much riskier move.The Browns know what they have in Anderson, while Brady Quinn is a complete mystery at this point.

True, but that's not the key point in my argument.QUINN IS CHEAP ON THE BENCH! Why wouldn't the Brown's keep them both? (UNless someone makes an absurd off for either of them?)I would think the right move is to try to sign DA to a 3 year deal in the 4-6 mil range. While on the bench, Quinn is making backup money anyway (less then 1 mil). The Brownies go into 2008 secure at the position for the first time in...forever?If DA flames...no biggie, they still have Quinn. If he's great, they can deal a mature Quinn then for no less then a second, or DA for much more.It's a win-win which we're making far more complicated then it should be.

 

[BusterTBronco]

It seems like a disproportionately high percentage of these rumors come out of Denver. Must be the thin air!

 

[twitch]

If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

This may be true, but dealing Anderson is a much riskier move.The Browns know what they have in Anderson, while Brady Quinn is a complete mystery at this point.

True, but that's not the key point in my argument.QUINN IS CHEAP ON THE BENCH! Why wouldn't the Brown's keep them both? (UNless someone makes an absurd off for either of them?)I would think the right move is to try to sign DA to a 3 year deal in the 4-6 mil range. While on the bench, Quinn is making backup money anyway (less then 1 mil). The Brownies go into 2008 secure at the position for the first time in...forever?If DA flames...no biggie, they still have Quinn. If he's great, they can deal a mature Quinn then for no less then a second, or DA for much more.It's a win-win which we're making far more complicated then it should be.

Is it smart to keep two QBs on the bench that make you feel warm and fuzzy at night? And help insure that youre a decent, respectable team? Or trade a player for a #1 pick, and try and improve the LEAGUE'S WORST DEFENSE? The Cleveland Browns are going nowhere without a defense. These decisions arent easy for teams. But passive aggression doesnt win. Agression does.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

This may be true, but dealing Anderson is a much riskier move.The Browns know what they have in Anderson, while Brady Quinn is a complete mystery at this point.

True, but that's not the key point in my argument.QUINN IS CHEAP ON THE BENCH! Why wouldn't the Brown's keep them both? (UNless someone makes an absurd off for either of them?)I would think the right move is to try to sign DA to a 3 year deal in the 4-6 mil range. While on the bench, Quinn is making backup money anyway (less then 1 mil). The Brownies go into 2008 secure at the position for the first time in...forever?If DA flames...no biggie, they still have Quinn. If he's great, they can deal a mature Quinn then for no less then a second, or DA for much more.It's a win-win which we're making far more complicated then it should be.

I understand your point.But if they could fill a hole in the starting lineup, ie RBby trading Quinn, why would you not do it ?This team is proving that they are not that faraway from being a legitimate playoff team.Trade Quinn for a top RB, and you are that much closer..

 

[The Shizzle]

It seems like a disproportionately high percentage of these rumors come out of Denver. Must be the thin air!

They also broke that Larry Johnson story a few weeks ago.......weird, huh?

 

[Kiddnets]

If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

This may be true, but dealing Anderson is a much riskier move.The Browns know what they have in Anderson, while Brady Quinn is a complete mystery at this point.

True, but that's not the key point in my argument.QUINN IS CHEAP ON THE BENCH! Why wouldn't the Brown's keep them both? (UNless someone makes an absurd off for either of them?)I would think the right move is to try to sign DA to a 3 year deal in the 4-6 mil range. While on the bench, Quinn is making backup money anyway (less then 1 mil). The Brownies go into 2008 secure at the position for the first time in...forever?If DA flames...no biggie, they still have Quinn. If he's great, they can deal a mature Quinn then for no less then a second, or DA for much more.It's a win-win which we're making far more complicated then it should be.

I would hold both for at least another year - if DA is still the goods after 2008 season they deal Quinn for what they can get - if he regresses then turn to Quinn in 2009 - 2 yrs on the bench is NOT a bad ting IMO.

 

[renesauz]

If Anderson continues to light up the boards, they will get more out of Anderson at this point then Quinn in a trade. IE: I would think Anderson is more likely moved then Quinn.

This may be true, but dealing Anderson is a much riskier move.The Browns know what they have in Anderson, while Brady Quinn is a complete mystery at this point.

True, but that's not the key point in my argument.QUINN IS CHEAP ON THE BENCH! Why wouldn't the Brown's keep them both? (UNless someone makes an absurd off for either of them?)I would think the right move is to try to sign DA to a 3 year deal in the 4-6 mil range. While on the bench, Quinn is making backup money anyway (less then 1 mil). The Brownies go into 2008 secure at the position for the first time in...forever?If DA flames...no biggie, they still have Quinn. If he's great, they can deal a mature Quinn then for no less then a second, or DA for much more.It's a win-win which we're making far more complicated then it should be.

I understand your point.But if they could fill a hole in the starting lineup, ie RBby trading Quinn, why would you not do it ?This team is proving that they are not that faraway from being a legitimate playoff team.Trade Quinn for a top RB, and you are that much closer..

Sure you are...and you do if the right opportunity comes along. What I'm saying is that the Browns office doesn't have to get aggressive here. There are lots of teams desperate for a starting caliber QB. They don't have to "move" either QB...they lock up both, sit back and review any offfers that come in. If the right off comes along, great. If it doesn't, that's fine too. It really is a win-win for them, and we are mistaken in thinking they HAVE TO do anything at all other then locking DA into the fold for at least next year.

 

[twitch]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

 

[kwantam]

Or trade a player for a #1 pick, and try and improve the LEAGUE'S WORST DEFENSE? The Cleveland Browns are going nowhere without a defense. These decisions arent easy for teams. But passive aggression doesnt win. Agression does.

Right. Which is why they should make some smart free agent moves instead of spending tons of cap room on a high draft pick with an uncertain future. Spending a total of $6M in cap room on your starting QB and his backup is a dream come true, especially when one of those QBs (DA) is legitimately good (and obviously they know more about BQ than we do, but since we haven't seen anything out of him I'll reserve judgement).A #1 pick will tie up $10M a year in cap room. That kind of money should get you two very good veteran DEs and a veteran LB to boot.-=kwantam

 

[Ron_Mexico]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

 

[Phil4]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

 

[strong]

anderson>>>>>brady

they'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

I would expect a low first, maybe a high second. I just can't see a mid to high first being paid for BQ.

I really don't see any team spending a first rounder on Quinn when most of those teams scouted him last year and passed... Maybe a mid second but a team would be pretty dumb to offer a low first rounder for him.

Don't forget, either, that leading up to the draft, players' values drop... so a third might be more likely.

And I don't see the Browns moving him for that considering his salary isn't outrageous for a backup QB.

 

[strong]

yeah...I could see them slapping the franchise tag on Anderson, even though it would be hella expensive. The get rid of Jamal Lewis and bring in Michael Turner....and out of the blue, the Brown-eyes would have a solid offense in place.

The franchise tag? You could see them paying him 13 million next year? As opposed to simply matching someone else's offer that will be considerably lower? Also, don't forget, that teams will be hesitant to offer much for Anderson considering it will also cost them a first and third rounder...

 

[renesauz]

Is it smart to keep two QBs on the bench that make you feel warm and fuzzy at night? And help insure that youre a decent, respectable team? Or trade a player for a #1 pick, and try and improve the LEAGUE'S WORST DEFENSE? The Cleveland Browns are going nowhere without a defense. These decisions arent easy for teams. But passive aggression doesnt win. Agression does.

Aggression is used when dealing from a position of weakness or limited strength. IN this scenario, the Brownies are dealing from a position of strength, and SHOULD take the passive-aggressive approach!

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

No, it isn't, but a #1 pick does not turn a defense around by itself either. Having one of the leagues top offenses sells tickets, so it's worth the gamble to KEEP that offense. Just ask Indy how that worked out for them. It took them a couple years to get a defense good enough to get them to the SB, but their offense kept them going to the playoffs, and fans in the seats, not to mention tons of prime time games, jersey sales, etc. It's a business, and offense sells more tickets then defense! You don't jeapordize an explosive offense to find/search for a defense.

 

[renesauz]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

Qb is the single most important position on the field. No team can afford NOT to have a quality QB. Look at Atlanta this year, or Carolina. How much more respectable has Houston become with a real QB...even when the running game abandoned them? They almost beat Pittsburgh on the road for God's sake, and it's because of solid QB play and an explosive offense. They don't need a great defense to compete right now, so why risk the offense even a little bit?

 

[daveandken]

yeah...I could see them slapping the franchise tag on Anderson, even though it would be hella expensive. The get rid of Jamal Lewis and bring in Michael Turner....and out of the blue, the Brown-eyes would have a solid offense in place.

Good moves, but isn't their offense pretty solid already?

 

[strong]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

At this point, Brady Quinn is not a top QB and history is not favorable for QBs that slip and slide in the first round...He's comparable to other pretty good backups with a decent upside.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

Qb is the single most important position on the field. No team can afford NOT to have a quality QB. Look at Atlanta this year, or Carolina. How much more respectable has Houston become with a real QB...even when the running game abandoned them? They almost beat Pittsburgh on the road for God's sake, and it's because of solid QB play and an explosive offense. They don't need a great defense to compete right now, so why risk the offense even a little bit?

I think you are making my point.A completely agree with everything you just stated.They just don't need "2".There are too many other needs on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[renesauz]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

Qb is the single most important position on the field. No team can afford NOT to have a quality QB. Look at Atlanta this year, or Carolina. How much more respectable has Houston become with a real QB...even when the running game abandoned them? They almost beat Pittsburgh on the road for God's sake, and it's because of solid QB play and an explosive offense. They don't need a great defense to compete right now, so why risk the offense even a little bit?

I think you are making my point.A completely agree with everything you just stated.They just don't need "2".There are too many other needs on the defensive side of the ball.

But neither is a bonafide stud at this point, let alone both. With both, they have security. Trade either, they don't. Again...I never said NOT to trade...I'm saying they don't HAVE to trade...they can (and should IMHO) sit back, and let QB starved teams come to them. They should play it from the position of strength they are in, acting for all the world like they will keep both, and see what some other desperate team will pay for a QB. If I'm in the Cleveland FO...I'm not looking for a "fair" deal. I'm looking for a great deal, or I'm keeping both and keeping my newfound security blanket at the games most critical position.

 

[chris1969]

anderson>>>>>brady

they'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

Based on what? Why does everyone think Anderson is suddenly so good? Are any of you actually watching him in games or are you all just going by fantasy stats? Quinn clearly looked better in the preseason. I know that doesn't mean anything, but why trade him until your sure Anderson is the best option. I've watched all the Brown's games and know a list of Anderson's flaws, but I can't name 1 flaw for Quinn yet. Most of you were whining about the Browns not putting Quinn in early enough in the year. Why are you now wanting to trade him before you can see what he can do?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But neither is a bonafide stud at this point, let alone both. With both, they have security. Trade either, they don't. Again...I never said NOT to trade...I'm saying they don't HAVE to trade...they can (and should IMHO) sit back, and let QB starved teams come to them. They should play it from the position of strength they are in, acting for all the world like they will keep both, and see what some other desperate team will pay for a QB. If I'm in the Cleveland FO...I'm not looking for a "fair" deal. I'm looking for a great deal, or I'm keeping both and keeping my newfound security blanket at the games most critical position.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

Qb is the single most important position on the field. No team can afford NOT to have a quality QB. Look at Atlanta this year, or Carolina. How much more respectable has Houston become with a real QB...even when the running game abandoned them? They almost beat Pittsburgh on the road for God's sake, and it's because of solid QB play and an explosive offense. They don't need a great defense to compete right now, so why risk the offense even a little bit?

I think you are making my point.A completely agree with everything you just stated.They just don't need "2".There are too many other needs on the defensive side of the ball.

But neither is a bonafide stud at this point, let alone both. With both, they have security. Trade either, they don't. Again...I never said NOT to trade...I'm saying they don't HAVE to trade...they can (and should IMHO) sit back, and let QB starved teams come to them. They should play it from the position of strength they are in, acting for all the world like they will keep both, and see what some other desperate team will pay for a QB. If I'm in the Cleveland FO...I'm not looking for a "fair" deal. I'm looking for a great deal, or I'm keeping both and keeping my newfound security blanket at the games most critical position.

concur. I never said to trade either QB out of desperation.If they can't get what they are looking for, thenholding DA and BQ is just fine, and does providenice insurance at the most important position on the field..

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think a 1st would be very attractive to a team in need. Cleveland has already paid his signing bonus, so his cap hit would be minimal for a low 1st/high 2nd. Coupled with the one year of added time in the NFL, I think a mid 1st is very appealing to a team in need. The question becomes, does Cleveland need that pick more than Quinn. I would think not, but I'm not in Clevelands front office either.

 

[tombonneau]

Browns should just tender Anderson with a 1st & 3rd. Someone will bite.

They can't trade Quinn. They'll get $0.75 on the $1. Don't forget, they gave up a 1st and a high 2nd (I think?) for him. And they won't be able get a 1st IMO, as others have stated, so you're gonna basically get a 2nd (if you're lucky).

Sorry, but am I the only one watching these Browns games? Anderson looks good, but not anything special. He is a competent QB behind a good OL with receiving threats.

Not to use the dreaded "S" word, but Anderson is looking more like a QB in a good system than a special talent elevating his teammates.

If I'm Cleveland I move Anderson in the offseason for a 1st and recoup part of my Quinn investment and hope that Brady pans out.

 

[Chase Stuart]

anderson>>>>>bradythey'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

I would expect a low first, maybe a high second. I just can't see a mid to high first being paid for BQ.

I think Quinn would easily garner a mid first. I wouldn't be surprised if he went for a top 10 pick.

 

[Chase Stuart]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

At this point, Brady Quinn is not a top QB and history is not favorable for QBs that slip and slide in the first round...He's comparable to other pretty good backups with a decent upside.

What history are you talking about exactly?Marino slid to the end of the first round.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Browns should just tender Anderson with a 1st & 3rd. Someone will bite. They can't trade Quinn. They'll get $0.75 on the $1. Don't forget, they gave up a 1st and a high 2nd (I think?) for him. And they won't be able get a 1st IMO, as others have stated, so you're gonna basically get a 2nd (if you're lucky).Sorry, but am I the only one watching these Browns games? Anderson looks good, but not anything special. He is a competent QB behind a good OL with receiving threats.Not to use the dreaded "S" word, but Anderson is looking more like a QB in a good system than a special talent elevating his teammates.If I'm Cleveland I move Anderson in the offseason for a 1st and recoup part of my Quinn investment and hope that Brady pans out.

You should give Anderson some time, too. Coming into this season, Quinn had more college starts than Anderson had college + NFL starts combined. Anderson's only a year older than Quinn, too. He's younger than Matt Leinart, and I doubt you'd say anything definitive about his NFL career.Anderson has gotten better this season, and he's still very, very raw. His upside looks tremendous.

 

[jturner01]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

Qb is the single most important position on the field. No team can afford NOT to have a quality QB. Look at Atlanta this year, or Carolina. How much more respectable has Houston become with a real QB...even when the running game abandoned them? They almost beat Pittsburgh on the road for God's sake, and it's because of solid QB play and an explosive offense. They don't need a great defense to compete right now, so why risk the offense even a little bit?

I think you are making my point.A completely agree with everything you just stated.They just don't need "2".There are too many other needs on the defensive side of the ball.

But neither is a bonafide stud at this point, let alone both. With both, they have security. Trade either, they don't. Again...I never said NOT to trade...I'm saying they don't HAVE to trade...they can (and should IMHO) sit back, and let QB starved teams come to them. They should play it from the position of strength they are in, acting for all the world like they will keep both, and see what some other desperate team will pay for a QB. If I'm in the Cleveland FO...I'm not looking for a "fair" deal. I'm looking for a great deal, or I'm keeping both and keeping my newfound security blanket at the games most critical position.

If they want security they will get a vet. back up not hold onto an unproven rookie that can get them a high drat pick.

 

[jturner01]

anderson>>>>>bradythey'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

I would expect a low first, maybe a high second. I just can't see a mid to high first being paid for BQ.

I think Quinn would easily garner a mid first. I wouldn't be surprised if he went for a top 10 pick.

Why? He did not garner that last year, and has not played in over a year from the time of the pick.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

anderson>>>>>bradythey'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

I would expect a low first, maybe a high second. I just can't see a mid to high first being paid for BQ.

I think Quinn would easily garner a mid first. I wouldn't be surprised if he went for a top 10 pick.

Disagree.Dude went at #22 on draft dayand has not played a down yet.He has not helped his stock risewith 16 games of pine riding.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

Qb is the single most important position on the field. No team can afford NOT to have a quality QB. Look at Atlanta this year, or Carolina. How much more respectable has Houston become with a real QB...even when the running game abandoned them? They almost beat Pittsburgh on the road for God's sake, and it's because of solid QB play and an explosive offense. They don't need a great defense to compete right now, so why risk the offense even a little bit?

I think you are making my point.A completely agree with everything you just stated.They just don't need "2".There are too many other needs on the defensive side of the ball.

But neither is a bonafide stud at this point, let alone both. With both, they have security. Trade either, they don't. Again...I never said NOT to trade...I'm saying they don't HAVE to trade...they can (and should IMHO) sit back, and let QB starved teams come to them. They should play it from the position of strength they are in, acting for all the world like they will keep both, and see what some other desperate team will pay for a QB. If I'm in the Cleveland FO...I'm not looking for a "fair" deal. I'm looking for a great deal, or I'm keeping both and keeping my newfound security blanket at the games most critical position.

If they want security they will get a vet. back up not hold onto an unproven rookie that can get them a high drat pick.

Thats not security. Its veteran back up, nothing more.This is an attempt at a long term solution at the most critical of positions.

 

[tombonneau]

anderson>>>>>bradythey'd be smart to keep anderson. too bad they might not get much for brady since no one else seemed to be interested in him during the draft.

I would expect a low first, maybe a high second. I just can't see a mid to high first being paid for BQ.

I think Quinn would easily garner a mid first. I wouldn't be surprised if he went for a top 10 pick.

I would be absolutely FLOORED if CLE got a top 10 pick for Quinn. If he wasn't perceived as a top 10 value in 2007 how is he a top 10 value in 2008? No way a GM would make that move. They would be a laughingstock.

 

[jturner01]

Browns should just tender Anderson with a 1st & 3rd. Someone will bite. They can't trade Quinn. They'll get $0.75 on the $1. Don't forget, they gave up a 1st and a high 2nd (I think?) for him. And they won't be able get a 1st IMO, as others have stated, so you're gonna basically get a 2nd (if you're lucky).Sorry, but am I the only one watching these Browns games? Anderson looks good, but not anything special. He is a competent QB behind a good OL with receiving threats.Not to use the dreaded "S" word, but Anderson is looking more like a QB in a good system than a special talent elevating his teammates.If I'm Cleveland I move Anderson in the offseason for a 1st and recoup part of my Quinn investment and hope that Brady pans out.

They swapped last years 2nd for Dallas' 1st and this years 1st. You cannot move Anderson he is a restricted free agent.

 

[jturner01]

They HAVE to do something about the league's WORST defense. And NOT having a #1 pick is not a good start.

This is my point.Some teams have the luxury to hold to top QBs on their roster.Cleveland is not one of those teams.

Qb is the single most important position on the field. No team can afford NOT to have a quality QB. Look at Atlanta this year, or Carolina. How much more respectable has Houston become with a real QB...even when the running game abandoned them? They almost beat Pittsburgh on the road for God's sake, and it's because of solid QB play and an explosive offense. They don't need a great defense to compete right now, so why risk the offense even a little bit?

I think you are making my point.A completely agree with everything you just stated.They just don't need "2".There are too many other needs on the defensive side of the ball.

But neither is a bonafide stud at this point, let alone both. With both, they have security. Trade either, they don't. Again...I never said NOT to trade...I'm saying they don't HAVE to trade...they can (and should IMHO) sit back, and let QB starved teams come to them. They should play it from the position of strength they are in, acting for all the world like they will keep both, and see what some other desperate team will pay for a QB. If I'm in the Cleveland FO...I'm not looking for a "fair" deal. I'm looking for a great deal, or I'm keeping both and keeping my newfound security blanket at the games most critical position.

If they want security they will get a vet. back up not hold onto an unproven rookie that can get them a high drat pick.

Thats not security. Its veteran back up, nothing more.This is an attempt at a long term solution at the most critical of positions.

Anderson is the long term solution, the securty/ tutor is the vet backup.

 

[tombonneau]

On a side note, when talking about franchising Anderson ... Belichick was asked if he would have taken Quinn had he fallen to him, and BB made the comment that he would never draft a QB in the first to be a backup. It just doesn't make economic sense.

Because under the salary cap system, it is simply not in a team's best interest to tie up that much of your salary cap in the QB position, because only one can be playing at a time. You aren't getting value for your salary cap buck.

Makes sense to me.

And if the Browns franchise Anderson, that's pretty much what you'll be doing. (And I know you can fudge those cap #s so show what a team is "only" paying in Year X or Y, but end of the day, it's a big chunk of change to be devoting to the QB position.)

 

[tombonneau]

Browns should just tender Anderson with a 1st & 3rd. Someone will bite. They can't trade Quinn. They'll get $0.75 on the $1. Don't forget, they gave up a 1st and a high 2nd (I think?) for him. And they won't be able get a 1st IMO, as others have stated, so you're gonna basically get a 2nd (if you're lucky).Sorry, but am I the only one watching these Browns games? Anderson looks good, but not anything special. He is a competent QB behind a good OL with receiving threats.Not to use the dreaded "S" word, but Anderson is looking more like a QB in a good system than a special talent elevating his teammates.If I'm Cleveland I move Anderson in the offseason for a 1st and recoup part of my Quinn investment and hope that Brady pans out.

They swapped last years 2nd for Dallas' 1st and this years 1st. You cannot move Anderson he is a restricted free agent.

Yes you can move Anderson. You hit him with a top level RFA tender and either someone will match the sheet or you can work out a trade (like Fish did with Welker).

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

The Browns don't need Michael Turner nor to spend $4+ million/year on a RB and give him a decent size signing bonus in the process. RB is the least of the Browns problems. Keep Lewis for peanuts and involve Harrison more or draft a middle round pick on a RB.

The $$ needs to be spent on D.