The Browns QB Situation (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

I'm always struck by teams that have a QB 'controversy' and so quickly erode the underpinnings of their entire team with an early season benching. I can't pretend to know if this is how it plays out inside a locker room, but to me, what Mangini did yesterday was just a recipe for turning a poor start into a lost season. Sure, one could argue that Quinn wasn't doing much and had Anderson come in and led them on a comeback, folks would be singing his praises. But that's not what happened, and more than a few of us could've bet that Anderson was going to struggle out of the gates.

My issue is not to turn this into a Mangini bashing thread, but to broadly have a dialog about this AND OTHER QB benchings. There have been plenty that have been vilified, even more than ultimately made no difference, and still others that looked like strokes of genius. I figure between all the sharks around here we might be able to compile a list of each type, and talk through whether a benching makes a lot of sense.

In this case, the Browns are now in a quandary. Quinn knows (or is supposed to know) OC Brian Daboll's system inside and out. One could argue that if he can't excel in this system, he's going to struggle in any NFL system. And he won a long and protracted camp battle over Anderson. Yet, 2.5 games into the season, Mangini signals to everyone, players/coaches/opponents/fans/media that he didn't have much conviction in the decision in the first place. Yet, Anderson comes in and it's a worst case scenario. He's as ineffective as Quinn has been PLUS he turns the ball over with abandon. Now you're faced with a situation of whether to keep Anderson in there and hope he someone becomes an efficient, non turnover prone QB, or you go back to Quinn but now have very little left in the quiver if Quinn struggles again.

And then of course you have the Brett Ratliff camp.

So what do you think about a) this particular situation and b ) other QB benchings and their outcomes?

 

[valhallan]

a) They've both proven even prior to this season to be less-than-average NFL QBs and there really isn't a correct answer for Cleveland - except maybe to reinforce that they both stink, clearing the way for Ratliff to get a legitimate shot.

b) I think the quarterbacks that should be playing do and the ones that shouldn't be playing disappear due to either a coaching change or the next draft class. McNabb responded, but he was already a quality passer to begin with and it was no surprise to see him bounce back. I spent years of frustration praying the Saints would bench Aaron Brooks to no avail. But in hindsight, benching him would have made no difference since he was and always will be a loser.

 

[MAC_32]

Been exchanging emails with several of my Browns friends all morning. My last one?

'I laughed when Mangini made that move yesterday, when I get that upset about something I tend to laugh instead of yell.'

That move, on top of all of his other questionable moves, very likely lost his locker room. That team out there is either completely void of talent, or they do not care enough to play hard. Whether the latter's right or wrong is moot, it all comes back to the coach. If it's the former, which I'm betting is not completely true, it still comes back to him. He brought most of these guys in, and is playing them over the rookies, who should be playing if we truly are that bad.

I was not with the Mangini move at the beginning, as time went on I warmed to it...now, I'm out again...and will remain out until proven otherwise. His game management is still awful, his game plan's are awful and when proven they are he doesn't make adjustments, and his people skills are non existent. The Bill Bellichik style only works when you're winning.

 

[stevegamer]

I'm always struck by teams that have a QB 'controversy' and so quickly erode the underpinnings of their entire team with an early season benching. I can't pretend to know if this is how it plays out inside a locker room, but to me, what Mangini did yesterday was just a recipe for turning a poor start into a lost season. Sure, one could argue that Quinn wasn't doing much and had Anderson come in and led them on a comeback, folks would be singing his praises. But that's not what happened, and more than a few of us could've bet that Anderson was going to struggle out of the gates.

My issue is not to turn this into a Mangini bashing thread, but to broadly have a dialog about this AND OTHER QB benchings. There have been plenty that have been vilified, even more than ultimately made no difference, and still others that looked like strokes of genius. I figure between all the sharks around here we might be able to compile a list of each type, and talk through whether a benching makes a lot of sense.

In this case, the Browns are now in a quandary. Quinn knows (or is supposed to know) OC Brian Daboll's system inside and out. One could argue that if he can't excel in this system, he's going to struggle in any NFL system. And he won a long and protracted camp battle over Anderson. Yet, 2.5 games into the season, Mangini signals to everyone, players/coaches/opponents/fans/media that he didn't have much conviction in the decision in the first place. Yet, Anderson comes in and it's a worst case scenario. He's as ineffective as Quinn has been PLUS he turns the ball over with abandon. Now you're faced with a situation of whether to keep Anderson in there and hope he someone becomes an efficient, non turnover prone QB, or you go back to Quinn but now have very little left in the quiver if Quinn struggles again.

And then of course you have the Brett Ratliff camp.

So what do you think about a) this particular situation and b ) other QB benchings and their outcomes?

The last time they did this, they benched Charlie Frye for Derek Anderson. That turned out pretty well:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2007.htm

So the question is, should you only do it when it is going to work? Of course, but there's no way to know.

Honestly, I thought Mangini was a horrible hire, since he's another attempt to go back to the BB tree, which has failed twice in Cleveland, and Mangini will be the 3rd time.

He built his rep on one good season his first year, and got fired after a 9-7 campaign last year. Not terrible, but you need to take that in context.

And I expect a Mangini fan to be in here defending him shortly:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/MangEr0.htm

 

[Jason Wood]

We can add the Bucs to the discussion, who have now named Josh Johnson the starter over Byron Leftwich. I must say that bewilders me even more. Leftwich was ineffective yesterday, sure, but he played above expectations in the first two weeks, at least above what I thought he was capable of.

 

[jon_mx]

Since they don't want James Davis to run the ball, why not give him a shot at QB. Can it really be worse? The Browns are looking to tie the Lions record.

 

[MAC_32]

We can add the Bucs to the discussion, who have now named Josh Johnson the starter over Byron Leftwich. I must say that bewilders me even more. Leftwich was ineffective yesterday, sure, but he played above expectations in the first two weeks, at least above what I thought he was capable of.

Leftwich was a veteran free agent pick up, I look at him similarly as DA, a good backup but not a good starter. The team's started 0-3 and looked bad doing it, might as well see what the young guys have. If Johnson does badly, throw Freeman out there and see what he's got. Makes sense to me.

 

[amnesiac]

Despite the score, Anderson said he was surprised he was given the ball. Why? For one thing, he said he wasn't told until the players left for the field following intermission.

i'm starting to become convinced this season is going to go down in the books as "EPIC FAIL"

 

[stevegamer]

We can add the Bucs to the discussion, who have now named Josh Johnson the starter over Byron Leftwich. I must say that bewilders me even more. Leftwich was ineffective yesterday, sure, but he played above expectations in the first two weeks, at least above what I thought he was capable of.

They are going completely young, and trying to find out what they have in the young guys. The Joshes have 0 career starts. At some point, they need to see the young guys.Very different than the Browns who thought they had the QB in Quinn when they moved up to get him, and have a backup who'se been a Pro-Bowler.

 

[kaa]

I'm always struck by teams that have a QB 'controversy' and so quickly erode the underpinnings of their entire team with an early season benching. I can't pretend to know if this is how it plays out inside a locker room, but to me, what Mangini did yesterday was just a recipe for turning a poor start into a lost season. Sure, one could argue that Quinn wasn't doing much and had Anderson come in and led them on a comeback, folks would be singing his praises. But that's not what happened, and more than a few of us could've bet that Anderson was going to struggle out of the gates.My issue is not to turn this into a Mangini bashing thread, but to broadly have a dialog about this AND OTHER QB benchings. There have been plenty that have been vilified, even more than ultimately made no difference, and still others that looked like strokes of genius. I figure between all the sharks around here we might be able to compile a list of each type, and talk through whether a benching makes a lot of sense.In this case, the Browns are now in a quandary. Quinn knows (or is supposed to know) OC Brian Daboll's system inside and out. One could argue that if he can't excel in this system, he's going to struggle in any NFL system. And he won a long and protracted camp battle over Anderson. Yet, 2.5 games into the season, Mangini signals to everyone, players/coaches/opponents/fans/media that he didn't have much conviction in the decision in the first place. Yet, Anderson comes in and it's a worst case scenario. He's as ineffective as Quinn has been PLUS he turns the ball over with abandon. Now you're faced with a situation of whether to keep Anderson in there and hope he someone becomes an efficient, non turnover prone QB, or you go back to Quinn but now have very little left in the quiver if Quinn struggles again.And then of course you have the Brett Ratliff camp.So what do you think about a) this particular situation and b ) other QB benchings and their outcomes?

This is what I said before the game about the notion of benching Quinn.

I don't know what can be gained by pulling Brady Quinn. The guy has only played in a small handful of games in his career so far. When teams commit to a young QB, they usually are willing to suffer through growing pains for 2-3 YEARS to make sure they know what they have. To sit him after 2 games would be really strange. If they really weren't ready to commit, they probably should have brought in a veteran QB.I can't think of a better way to destroy the confidence of both Quinn and Anderson (and the morale of the entire club) than to juggle them in and out of the lineup trying to find a hot hand.Charlie Frye wasn't even benched - he was outright kicked off the team.If they actually bench Quinn, I'd consider cutting every Cleveland Brown on my fantasy team, because that would tell me Mangini has no idea what he is doing, and the team is probably lost.

 

[Bobcat10]

Despite the score, Anderson said he was surprised he was given the ball. Why? For one thing, he said he wasn't told until the players left for the field following intermission.

i'm starting to become convinced this season is going to go down in the books as "EPIC FAIL"

That's bizzaro.So they got into the huddle and saw DA and were probably like edit: actually, I can see the rumor floating around during 2nd half warmups between the players. Even worse.

 

[Jason Wood]

We can add the Bucs to the discussion, who have now named Josh Johnson the starter over Byron Leftwich. I must say that bewilders me even more. Leftwich was ineffective yesterday, sure, but he played above expectations in the first two weeks, at least above what I thought he was capable of.

They are going completely young, and trying to find out what they have in the young guys. The Joshes have 0 career starts. At some point, they need to see the young guys.Very different than the Browns who thought they had the QB in Quinn when they moved up to get him, and have a backup who'se been a Pro-Bowler.

It's early to do that though. Was Leftwich the reason they went 0-3? In the 3rd game, certainly he was a part of the equation. But in the first two games? Seems like if the Bucs are making a checklist of things that need changing, his play wouldn't have been near the top. Yet, as is all too often the case, QBs get more blame/praise than they deserve and it's easier to swap out a QB than replace your entire linebacking corps. As to Anderson being a Pro Bowler, I would hope the myth of Anderson as a plus NFL QB was debunked long ago. His 'Pro Bowl' season was a tale of thirds...two of which weren't very encouraging sandwiched around a lights out month.

 

[kaa]

The last time they did this, they benched Charlie Frye for Derek Anderson. That turned out pretty well:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2007.htm

So the question is, should you only do it when it is going to work? Of course, but there's no way to know.

The Browns dismantled that 2007 pass offense by getting rid of Kellen Winslow. Winslow had blocking problems but he was an exceptional receiver for this team. When the pass blocking is there, and the QB has two nice targets in Braylon and Kellen running around, the pass offense became very effective. Now, teams can blanket Braylon because they don't fear anyone else.You'd think that since the Browns made a blocking TE such a priority that they got rid of Winslow, that the team would run more than pass and try to pound out wins while nurturing Brady Quinn along slowly, not asking him to do much but get comfortable out there. But they are throwing an awful lot, and the team isn't built to do that anymore.

 

[kaa]

Its kind of amusing when you think about it. Butch Davis trades up to get Kellen Winslow. Butch Davis gets mercilessly ripped for it. Then as it turns out, Winslow becomes perhaps the only true playmaker on the entire team. And instead of everyone realizing they have something special for once, they focus on the negative and how he struggles at times in blocking. So the solution is to get rid of him. Yes, the guy who is pretty much the lone playmaker is dumped. And then everyone stands around wondering why nothing is working.

I mean honestly, Kellen Winslow WAS the offense. He last week he played for the Browns was week 10 last year. And they have done absolutely nothing without him ever since.

 

[stevegamer]

We can add the Bucs to the discussion, who have now named Josh Johnson the starter over Byron Leftwich. I must say that bewilders me even more. Leftwich was ineffective yesterday, sure, but he played above expectations in the first two weeks, at least above what I thought he was capable of.

They are going completely young, and trying to find out what they have in the young guys. The Joshes have 0 career starts. At some point, they need to see the young guys.Very different than the Browns who thought they had the QB in Quinn when they moved up to get him, and have a backup who'se been a Pro-Bowler.

It's early to do that though. Was Leftwich the reason they went 0-3? In the 3rd game, certainly he was a part of the equation. But in the first two games? Seems like if the Bucs are making a checklist of things that need changing, his play wouldn't have been near the top. Yet, as is all too often the case, QBs get more blame/praise than they deserve and it's easier to swap out a QB than replace your entire linebacking corps. As to Anderson being a Pro Bowler, I would hope the myth of Anderson as a plus NFL QB was debunked long ago. His 'Pro Bowl' season was a tale of thirds...two of which weren't very encouraging sandwiched around a lights out month.

You know that, I know that. That aside, does Mangini really know that?And yes, QB's get way too much praise/blame. That's why the HoF is littered with them - I await the day when "touching the QB" becomes a penalty, and I'm only half joking.

The Browns have screwed up in player evaluation for a bit now, although i think Joe Thomas is good.

 

[rzrback77]

Both the Tampa Bay and Cleveland situations are bizzare.

Cleveland took all off-season to study and decide and even withheld the decision as long during the game week as possible and went with Quinn. He hasn't performed well, but the Browns have lost to Minnesota (3-0), at Denver (3-0) and at Baltimore (3-0). There is no shame in losing to three solid teams. Granted the Broncos weren't expected to be good, but they have won three in a row. I don't know how Quinn was playing, but looking at the outright whipping the Ravens were putting on the Browns, it could not have all been Quinn's fault. Don't see this going well, for the QBs down the road or for the Browns. Seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction pulling Quinn and now there is a two day wait to judge as to who will start. Whoever starts in week 4 will be looking behind them for the hook.

Tampa Bay brought two guys in to battle for the starting position and then drafted a QB in the first round. That puts immediate pressure on the winner as he knows that it is short term. Leftwich survived and probably felt like he would be the guy this year as they traded McCown. The he did very well for two weeks before facing the Giants. There is no shame in throwing up a stinker against that defense, but now he is out and the Bucs are 0-3. It appears that the rookie is not yet getting it as Sanchez has been outstanding starting from the get-go and Stafford won a game for the Lions so he is getting by. Yet the Bucs go with never used J Johnson to replace Leftwich as they continue to wait for Freeman to be ready. Wonder how confident Johnson will be knowing that he too is on a short hook? Makes me wonder why they drafted a QB after bringing in two and having another young guy that they liked some.

Looks like long seasons ahead for both squads.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Personally, I thought it was a horrible move to bench Quinn. Completely agree with the OP.

The only wild card in Mangini's decision is that a large portion of Quinn's contract is tied to playing time. I think he has like a $1 million incentive that would kick in this year, and a $5 million escalator that would kick in this off-season if he starts/plays a certain % of games. It is possible that factored into Mangini's decision, especially since he didn't draft Quinn.

 

[az_prof]

We can add the Bucs to the discussion, who have now named Josh Johnson the starter over Byron Leftwich. I must say that bewilders me even more. Leftwich was ineffective yesterday, sure, but he played above expectations in the first two weeks, at least above what I thought he was capable of.

They are going completely young, and trying to find out what they have in the young guys. The Joshes have 0 career starts. At some point, they need to see the young guys.Very different than the Browns who thought they had the QB in Quinn when they moved up to get him, and have a backup who'se been a Pro-Bowler.

Totally agree: there is a difference between a losing team seeing what they have in younger players and bailing on your young QB three games into a season that was likely to be a losing season anyway. That being said, I have never liked Quinn and felt he would bust. He wasn't that good in college and was promoted because of hype that ND generated at that time when Charlie Weiss was new and everyone thought ND was resurgent. His sister and hot girlfriend also generated alot of TV coverage. Seriously, Quinn is way overrated and his lack of success does not surprise me.Bottom line if you are a Clevaland fan: wait for basketball season.

 

[knowledge dropper]

Mangini was a terrible hire and Cleveland should cut bait ASAP or they are going to waste more years chasing the ghost of BB. I would not be surprised if the gives Ratliff a shot. Regardless, he is Cleveland's Dave Shula.

 

[abe froman]

Im officially embarrased as a Browns fan; losing is one thing, it's sad to say that we are used to it, but what we have to watch right now is horrible. We really need to eliminate this "QB" controversy. Neither are the future so lets dump 1 and focus on the real problems like the defense.. Im officially boycotting going to/watching this sorry excuse of an organization. Again it has nothing to do with just losing as we are used to that.

 

[Fallerjw]

a) They've both proven even prior to this season to be less-than-average NFL QBs and there really isn't a correct answer for Cleveland - except maybe to reinforce that they both stink, clearing the way for Ratliff to get a legitimate shot.

b) I think the quarterbacks that should be playing do and the ones that shouldn't be playing disappear due to either a coaching change or the next draft class. McNabb responded, but he was already a quality passer to begin with and it was no surprise to see him bounce back. I spent years of frustration praying the Saints would bench Aaron Brooks to no avail. But in hindsight, benching him would have made no difference since he was and always will be a loser.

Before this season Quinn had played in 4 games, and one of those games was just for 1 series. How could he have proven to be less than average in that amount of time?

 

[Fallerjw]

Its kind of amusing when you think about it. Butch Davis trades up to get Kellen Winslow. Butch Davis gets mercilessly ripped for it. Then as it turns out, Winslow becomes perhaps the only true playmaker on the entire team. And instead of everyone realizing they have something special for once, they focus on the negative and how he struggles at times in blocking. So the solution is to get rid of him. Yes, the guy who is pretty much the lone playmaker is dumped. And then everyone stands around wondering why nothing is working.I mean honestly, Kellen Winslow WAS the offense. He last week he played for the Browns was week 10 last year. And they have done absolutely nothing without him ever since.

Then the Browns trade him for Mohamed Massaquoi and a 5th round pick in 2010. WTH are they doing?

 

[MAC_32]

Its kind of amusing when you think about it. Butch Davis trades up to get Kellen Winslow. Butch Davis gets mercilessly ripped for it. Then as it turns out, Winslow becomes perhaps the only true playmaker on the entire team. And instead of everyone realizing they have something special for once, they focus on the negative and how he struggles at times in blocking. So the solution is to get rid of him. Yes, the guy who is pretty much the lone playmaker is dumped. And then everyone stands around wondering why nothing is working.I mean honestly, Kellen Winslow WAS the offense. He last week he played for the Browns was week 10 last year. And they have done absolutely nothing without him ever since.

I don't think you watched 2008 Kellen Winslow.

 

[The Jerk]

the Browns ... ... WTH are they doing?

This should be the marketing slogan for the 2009 season.

 

[hoopvillian]

Totally agree: there is a difference between a losing team seeing what they have in younger players and bailing on your young QB three games into a season that was likely to be a losing season anyway. That being said, I have never liked Quinn and felt he would bust. He wasn't that good in college and was promoted because of hype that ND generated at that time when Charlie Weiss was new and everyone thought ND was resurgent. His sister and hot girlfriend also generated alot of TV coverage. Seriously, Quinn is way overrated and his lack of success does not surprise me.Bottom line if you are a Clevaland fan: wait for basketball season.

Couldn't have said it better, the guy has never really been that good.

 

[Catbird]

the Browns ... ... WTH are they doing?

This should be the marketing slogan for the 2009 season.

Looks like a long road back from this situation.

 

[Mikey16x]

As a NY Homer that watched the Jet's last season... I was mad that they started the wrong Brett. I think Ratliff deserves a legit crack at taking 1st team reps, it really cannot get any worse..

 

[renesauz]

Benching a jouneyman veteran for a young QB with upside makes sense on a losing squad. Benching a young QB for a journeyman starter on a bad team doesn't. I realize Anderson is also young, but he's already shown what he is, already had an adequate shot at a starting gig.

Benching Quinn was a ridiculous move.

Benching Leftwich makes sense. The team stinks, and it would be nice to see what Johnson has. That said, if you do that, you really need to give Johnson a real chance...you can't pull him two weeks later to stick Freeman or Leftwich in.

The benching of McNabb last year is a high risk/high reward type of move. He never really lost his job, so it was a differant kind of benching that, honestly, should happen more often in NFL games. Sometimes, a QB is just unable to get going in a game, and a change of pace (backup) might spark something. I'd like to see coaches try that more often, even if it's only for a half or a couple of series'.

 

[nxmehta]

Not only is Mangini benching the QBs, but he's also been benching other players on the team in questionable ways:Brodney Pool, the starting FS, on being benched during last week's game:

"I'm not going to say I'm happy about it, but it's the coaches' decision and I can't really do anything about it," said Pool. "I think Mike's a good player and they might want to give him more time. I can't really answer. I don't know what their thinking is."

Rod Hood, CB released from the Browns, in perhaps the most damning statement:

"I never really knew where I stood there on a day-to-day basis, and I had never experienced that before in Philly and Arizona," said Hood, who landed with the Bears. "I would be first string one day and play well and then the next day I would be second string with no rhyme or reason."

I think that benching any player, QB or otherwise, can sometimes have positive effects. I think it's very situation though- intuitively I would say a couple of things to happen:1. The player has to understand why they are benched and what the expectations are.2. The player needs to be able to handle it psychologically and elevate their game.3. The coach needs to be able to inspire confidence in the player despite the benching.4. The player needs to, you know, not suck in general.If I remember correctly in the McNabb situation all these requirements were filled. For Quinn though we don't have anything, although I'll withhold judgment on how good Quinn is and how he'll respond since it's hard to tell if Quinn *really* sucks after 2.5 games.Holy hell though the Tampa situation is even worse- you're benching Leftwich for someone not named Josh Freeman? The guy has at least thrown a couple of TDs this year? The Browns would kill for his stats right about now.