McCoy or Wallace?
-
That seems to be the question... and when you leave out Delhomme, it doesn't sound quite so crazy. Wallace is just 30 and can at least make the claim that he was playing good football when he got hurt. He had a passer rating of 124 in the half before he was hurt, and almost 90 overall.
But you do have to factor in: In Seattle, Wallace was never taken seriously as a starter. He usually seemed to get "exposed" the longer he played: He isn't a field general, rarely changing plays at the line, and his accuracy downfield is really suspect. That said, he's mobile and has an upper-bracket arm. He seemed to be getting comfortable in the offense before he was hurt. Unlike the Delhomme signing, I was happy to get Wallace.
On the other hand, I doubt anybody within the Browns organization really thinks Seneca Wallace is the long-term starter for the Browns. I would say it's either McCoy... or someone who isn't the roster, like Kolb, Luck, or Locker. Based on how he DIDN'T suck in his first two games, on the road against the Steelers and Saints, I think it's tough to say we have a much better chance of winning with Wallace than McCoy... so why sit McCoy?
Also favoring McCoy: He's in the flow. Unlike Wallace, he's been playing AND practicing these past three weeks.
My take: You start McCoy with Wallace as the backup. You keep the leash relatively loose on McCoy... but if he falls apart, you pull him for Wallace and keep the Eagles on speed dial unless we somehow end up drafting ahead of the Bills.
-
McWallace
-
That seems to be the question... and when you leave out Delhomme, it doesn't sound quite so crazy. Wallace is just 30 and can at least make the claim that he was playing good football when he got hurt. He had a passer rating of 124 in the half before he was hurt, and almost 90 overall.
But you do have to factor in: In Seattle, Wallace was never taken seriously as a starter. He usually seemed to get "exposed" the longer he played: He isn't a field general, rarely changing plays at the line, and his accuracy downfield is really suspect. That said, he's mobile and has an upper-bracket arm. He seemed to be getting comfortable in the offense before he was hurt. Unlike the Delhomme signing, I was happy to get Wallace.
On the other hand, I doubt anybody within the Browns organization really thinks Seneca Wallace is the long-term starter for the Browns. I would say it's either McCoy... or someone who isn't the roster, like Kolb, Luck, or Locker. Based on how he DIDN'T suck in his first two games, on the road against the Steelers and Saints, I think it's tough to say we have a much better chance of winning with Wallace than McCoy... so why sit McCoy?
Also favoring McCoy: He's in the flow. Unlike Wallace, he's been playing AND practicing these past three weeks.
My take: You start McCoy with Wallace as the backup. You keep the leash relatively loose on McCoy... but if he falls apart, you pull him for Wallace and keep the Eagles on speed dial unless we somehow end up drafting ahead of the Bills.
That seems to be the question... and when you leave out Delhomme, it doesn't sound quite so crazy. Wallace is just 30 and can at least make the claim that he was playing good football when he got hurt. He had a passer rating of 124 in the half before he was hurt, and almost 90 overall.
But you do have to factor in: In Seattle, Wallace was never taken seriously as a starter. He usually seemed to get "exposed" the longer he played: He isn't a field general, rarely changing plays at the line, and his accuracy downfield is really suspect. That said, he's mobile and has an upper-bracket arm. He seemed to be getting comfortable in the offense before he was hurt. Unlike the Delhomme signing, I was happy to get Wallace.
On the other hand, I doubt anybody within the Browns organization really thinks Seneca Wallace is the long-term starter for the Browns. I would say it's either McCoy... or someone who isn't the roster, like Kolb, Luck, or Locker. Based on how he DIDN'T suck in his first two games, on the road against the Steelers and Saints, I think it's tough to say we have a much better chance of winning with Wallace than McCoy... so why sit McCoy?
Also favoring McCoy: He's in the flow. Unlike Wallace, he's been playing AND practicing these past three weeks.
My take: You start McCoy with Wallace as the backup. You keep the leash relatively loose on McCoy... but if he falls apart, you pull him for Wallace and keep the Eagles on speed dial unless we somehow end up drafting ahead of the Bills.
I agree. See no sense in letting Wallace start over McCoy. He performed pretty good against two top notch teams. Hope they start him.
-
That seems to be the question... and when you leave out Delhomme, it doesn't sound quite so crazy. Wallace is just 30 and can at least make the claim that he was playing good football when he got hurt. He had a passer rating of 124 in the half before he was hurt, and almost 90 overall.
But you do have to factor in: In Seattle, Wallace was never taken seriously as a starter. He usually seemed to get "exposed" the longer he played: He isn't a field general, rarely changing plays at the line, and his accuracy downfield is really suspect. That said, he's mobile and has an upper-bracket arm. He seemed to be getting comfortable in the offense before he was hurt. Unlike the Delhomme signing, I was happy to get Wallace.
On the other hand, I doubt anybody within the Browns organization really thinks Seneca Wallace is the long-term starter for the Browns. I would say it's either McCoy... or someone who isn't the roster, like Kolb, Luck, or Locker. Based on how he DIDN'T suck in his first two games, on the road against the Steelers and Saints, I think it's tough to say we have a much better chance of winning with Wallace than McCoy... so why sit McCoy?
Also favoring McCoy: He's in the flow. Unlike Wallace, he's been playing AND practicing these past three weeks.
My take: You start McCoy with Wallace as the backup. You keep the leash relatively loose on McCoy... but if he falls apart, you pull him for Wallace and keep the Eagles on speed dial unless we somehow end up drafting ahead of the Bills.
That seems to be the question... and when you leave out Delhomme, it doesn't sound quite so crazy. Wallace is just 30 and can at least make the claim that he was playing good football when he got hurt. He had a passer rating of 124 in the half before he was hurt, and almost 90 overall.
But you do have to factor in: In Seattle, Wallace was never taken seriously as a starter. He usually seemed to get "exposed" the longer he played: He isn't a field general, rarely changing plays at the line, and his accuracy downfield is really suspect. That said, he's mobile and has an upper-bracket arm. He seemed to be getting comfortable in the offense before he was hurt. Unlike the Delhomme signing, I was happy to get Wallace.
On the other hand, I doubt anybody within the Browns organization really thinks Seneca Wallace is the long-term starter for the Browns. I would say it's either McCoy... or someone who isn't the roster, like Kolb, Luck, or Locker. Based on how he DIDN'T suck in his first two games, on the road against the Steelers and Saints, I think it's tough to say we have a much better chance of winning with Wallace than McCoy... so why sit McCoy?
Also favoring McCoy: He's in the flow. Unlike Wallace, he's been playing AND practicing these past three weeks.
My take: You start McCoy with Wallace as the backup. You keep the leash relatively loose on McCoy... but if he falls apart, you pull him for Wallace and keep the Eagles on speed dial unless we somehow end up drafting ahead of the Bills.
I honestly don't care who starts.. I hope whoever starts plays well and helps us win.. The fans better not be calling for the backup after one bad play. Give whoever starts a chance.. Also, we can't trade for Kolb because its past the trading deadline.. and there is no way in hell buffalo ends up with a better record than us..
-
word on the street is that it's going to be wallace. jules winnfield was seen in magini's office with a gun to his head screaming "what does seneca wallace look like?"
-
word on the street is that it's going to be wallace. jules winnfield was seen in magini's office with a gun to his head screaming "what does seneca wallace look like?"
word on the street is that it's going to be wallace. jules winnfield was seen in magini's office with a gun to his head screaming "what does seneca wallace look like?"
Idk I think its McCoy. The ghost of Gary Coleman was seen the Browns locker room with a gun to Seneca's head saying "Whatcha talkin bout Wallace?"
-
My guess would be wallace will start, my choice would be colt simply because he has better field vision and leadership not to mention accuracy and he isnt afraid to take the shot down field...
Seneca isnt as accurate as colt and he often hesitates to long before letting one rip and the window often closes on him and or he overthrows it...
Regardless of who starts we are still better off at QB than we were last year...
-
I think it's pretty important to make sure McCoy stays as either the #1 or #2 guy, so that he's in the mix for reps every single week during practice. He's at least earned that.
In terms of who to start, I think that unless Holmgren publicly says otherwise, Mangini would have to give a 100% Wallace the start. The reason is that this is the only window of opportunity he has to bench McCoy for a reason other than on field performance. That's a huge opportunity. Right now, there is no QB controversy other than the one manufactured by certain members of the press to essentially generate web traffic. Once you bench a QB for a reason not related to injury, you instantly have a real controversy on your hands.
As for next season's draft, I doubt Holmgren will take a QB early. Locker has been all but exposed as a huge project, Luck won't be around unless we trade up, and Mallett has his own question marks. Also, if the Browns draft a QB in the first round next year, they essentially are saying "Colt McCoy isn't good enough to be our (Cleveland's) starting quarterback." What team would then make him theirs? No, he'd be worth the same as any other backup; substantially less than the third round pick that got him in the organization. Drafting Colt in the third round was basically saying, "we think he could be a starting NFL quarterback; we'll take the risk and find out, otherwise he's a backup." Drafting a new franchise is basically saying, "we took a chance on him, looks like we were wrong." The only potential way to rescue the value is to claim he's not suitable for cold weather games and trade him to a team in the sun belt.
One of three things happens: 1. McCoy starts because Wallace isn't 100%, 2. Wallace starts because he is, or 3. Holmgren announces his plans for working McCoy into the gameplan for this season (and all bets are off at that point).
-
My take is this...Jake if healthy should still get the start. Not healthy, the reason we liked Seneca was his mobility out of the pocket. That being said we were trying to keep Colt on the bench, but our hand was tipped. Since that is the case Colt also has the mobility and unlike Seneca he can make ALL the throws on the field where Seneca is horrible with the fade route downfield. We know Seneca is not our longterm answer so I also think we give Colt the start with Seneca waiting in the wings...
-
That seems to be the question... and when you leave out Delhomme, it doesn't sound quite so crazy. Wallace is just 30 and can at least make the claim that he was playing good football when he got hurt. He had a passer rating of 124 in the half before he was hurt, and almost 90 overall.
But you do have to factor in: In Seattle, Wallace was never taken seriously as a starter. He usually seemed to get "exposed" the longer he played: He isn't a field general, rarely changing plays at the line, and his accuracy downfield is really suspect. That said, he's mobile and has an upper-bracket arm. He seemed to be getting comfortable in the offense before he was hurt. Unlike the Delhomme signing, I was happy to get Wallace.
On the other hand, I doubt anybody within the Browns organization really thinks Seneca Wallace is the long-term starter for the Browns. I would say it's either McCoy... or someone who isn't the roster, like Kolb, Luck, or Locker. Based on how he DIDN'T suck in his first two games, on the road against the Steelers and Saints, I think it's tough to say we have a much better chance of winning with Wallace than McCoy... so why sit McCoy?
Also favoring McCoy: He's in the flow. Unlike Wallace, he's been playing AND practicing these past three weeks.
My take: You start McCoy with Wallace as the backup. You keep the leash relatively loose on McCoy... but if he falls apart, you pull him for Wallace and keep the Eagles on speed dial unless we somehow end up drafting ahead of the Bills.
I honestly don't care who starts.. I hope whoever starts plays well and helps us win.. The fans better not be calling for the backup after one bad play. Give whoever starts a chance.. Also, we can't trade for Kolb because its past the trading deadline.. and there is no way in hell buffalo ends up with a better record than us..
I honestly don't care who starts.. I hope whoever starts plays well and helps us win.. The fans better not be calling for the backup after one bad play. Give whoever starts a chance.. Also, we can't trade for Kolb because its past the trading deadline.. and there is no way in hell buffalo ends up with a better record than us..
The trade for Kolb would be after the season.
-
Unless the Browns have a very good feeling that McCoy is their long-term guy, probably starting in 2011... they almost have to draft or trade for their QB. Windows don't stay open very long and you can't keep putting it off.
-
We are all at a disadvantage here of not knowing how Colt has graded out in terms of the film room. To clarify, we know he's played well against the Steelers and Saints (and they don't come any tougher than Dick LeBeau and Gregg Williams' defenses) but was he missing reads? Did he make a lot of mistakes that weren't readily apparent on TV? I don't know the answer to that.
Seneca Wallace did not show me anything physically that McCoy can't do. The only advantage Seneca has over McCoy is the veteran experience factor because McCoy even exhibits great leadership qualities. The question then boils down to that trade off. Are you willing to accept a mentally-tough-but-inexperienced Colt or do you need a seen-it-all-but-not-nearly-the-upside Seneca?
My vote is for Colt but I don't have as much information as I would like.
-
After seeing both Wallace and McCoy, I dont think Wallace was glareingly that much better than McCoy. So I'm going with McCoy out of them two, but if Jake's healthy he gets the start. He's the only one who really hasn't got a shot to show what he can do healthy. Let him start a couple games healthy, if he's not impressive let Colt finish out the year.
Shep, I'm curious if your feelings have changed any about my man Ricky Stanzi?
Almost 70% completion percentage, 19 tds, 2 ints, 2000 yrds. Is there a QB out there with better stats? He should be mentioned in the heisman race.
6'4" 230lbs. 3 year starter in a pro style offense, he has everything you look for in a franchise QB. You have to be warming up to him a little?
-
We are all at a disadvantage here of not knowing how Colt has graded out in terms of the film room. To clarify, we know he's played well against the Steelers and Saints (and they don't come any tougher than Dick LeBeau and Gregg Williams' defenses) but was he missing reads? Did he make a lot of mistakes that weren't readily apparent on TV? I don't know the answer to that.
Seneca Wallace did not show me anything physically that McCoy can't do. The only advantage Seneca has over McCoy is the veteran experience factor because McCoy even exhibits great leadership qualities. The question then boils down to that trade off. Are you willing to accept a mentally-tough-but-inexperienced Colt or do you need a seen-it-all-but-not-nearly-the-upside Seneca?
My vote is for Colt but I don't have as much information as I would like.
We are all at a disadvantage here of not knowing how Colt has graded out in terms of the film room. To clarify, we know he's played well against the Steelers and Saints (and they don't come any tougher than Dick LeBeau and Gregg Williams' defenses) but was he missing reads? Did he make a lot of mistakes that weren't readily apparent on TV? I don't know the answer to that.
Seneca Wallace did not show me anything physically that McCoy can't do. The only advantage Seneca has over McCoy is the veteran experience factor because McCoy even exhibits great leadership qualities. The question then boils down to that trade off. Are you willing to accept a mentally-tough-but-inexperienced Colt or do you need a seen-it-all-but-not-nearly-the-upside Seneca?
My vote is for Colt but I don't have as much information as I would like.
Overwhelmingly this. (But I think the HC will see it differently).
-
Whoever is better for the team NOW. I don't care about next year.........yet. There mite not even be a next year
-
I start Wallace.
Colt needs more experience no doubt, but you don't throw a fairly talented veteran QB with 7 years left to the junk heap.
At this point there is no question Wallace is the better QB.
It's time to get off these goober questions and think logically.
Colt has a future, but he is the 3rd stringer who needs to season a bit. Wallace is seasoned. It's time to look his way and see if he is the guy because he is as ready as he will become.
-
You gotta believe the decision will probably point to the conclusion of the season being declared if it's McCoy.
I am not saying he can't get it done , but if you make the change , you got to ride it out to it's natural conclusion.
-
Kind of where i am coming from as well.
If we name McCoy and more or less lose out, there is nothing to fall back on and pretty much tells the league in which direction we are looking in the draft.....every Tom, Dick, and Harry who might want a QB will be working to get ahead of us in the draft if they already aren't.
-
Kind of where i am coming from as well.
If we name McCoy and more or less lose out, there is nothing to fall back on and pretty much tells the league in which direction we are looking in the draft.....every Tom, Dick, and Harry who might want a QB will be working to get ahead of us in the draft if they already aren't.
Kind of where i am coming from as well.
If we name McCoy and more or less lose out, there is nothing to fall back on and pretty much tells the league in which direction we are looking in the draft.....every Tom, Dick, and Harry who might want a QB will be working to get ahead of us in the draft if they already aren't.
According to many experts the best quarterback (Stanzi) will be available after the 4th rd. So no worrys
I think he goes first round though, my expert opinion
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login