Wallace-conditional pick
-
Could the reason Wallace isn't playing have something to do conditional pick the Browns owe the Seahawks for that trade?
-
Could the reason Wallace isn't playing have something to do conditional pick the Browns owe the Seahawks for that trade?
-
Everyone's going "hmm," including Pluto:
http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index....t_choice_a.html
-
Wow I did not know that.
-
I just really can't see the rationale for starting delhomme any longer.. I mean, it's mind boggling... the offense is DEAD when he is in.. delhomme should have been pulled at half or at WORST end of third quarter yesterday. AHHHH It def. makes you think though about all the back door politics that might be involved...
-
If Wallace had been playing really well they wouldn't be concerned. Since he played about the same as Delhomme it could make a difference.
-
Well, along this line of thought, it was speculated on the radio last night that the decision to continue to play Delhomme is not Mangini's but is being dictated by the fact that Jake has this big contract this year and the powers that be are bound and determined to see that they try to get their money's worth out of that deal.
In other words, it may be a business decision mandated by Randy Lerner that Jake play because of the $$ his is being paid, and that Wallace not play because he is getting peanuts by comparison and the more he plays the more the Browns have to give up for him.
I repeat though, this is just speculation.....but, where there's smoke?
-
Well, along this line of thought, it was speculated on the radio last night that the decision to continue to play Delhomme is not Mangini's but is being dictated by the fact that Jake has this big contract this year and the powers that be are bound and determined to see that they try to get their money's worth out of that deal.
In other words, it may be a business decision mandated by Randy Lerner that Jake play because of the $$ his is being paid, and that Wallace not play because he is getting peanuts by comparison and the more he plays the more the Browns have to give up for him.
I repeat though, this is just speculation.....but, where there's smoke?
Well, along this line of thought, it was speculated on the radio last night that the decision to continue to play Delhomme is not Mangini's but is being dictated by the fact that Jake has this big contract this year and the powers that be are bound and determined to see that they try to get their money's worth out of that deal.
In other words, it may be a business decision mandated by Randy Lerner that Jake play because of the $$ his is being paid, and that Wallace not play because he is getting peanuts by comparison and the more he plays the more the Browns have to give up for him.
I repeat though, this is just speculation.....but, where there's smoke?
Unless Holmgren signed off on it I'd say zero chance of that happening. Would be totally unlike Lerner to force something of that nature too. Mangini's coaching for his job and I'd like to think he knows at this point in the season, Delhome is sucking worse than Derek Anderson. I'll steal one of Shep's quotes- and say running Hillis 40 times and hoping your defense can hold the other team to 7 points while forcing a bunch of turnovers isn't much of a game plan.
IMHO, that's what we're limited to with Jake. Seriously- I'm starting to have flashbacks seeing a DA clone with a torn rotator cuff on top of it back there at qb for the Browns.
The draft pick for Wallace seems to have more traction- 30 second research says it's a conditional late round pick that could improve based on playing time. Hard to believe Holmgren & the Browns would trade off wins now in exchange for giving up a higher pick for Wallace- unless it's WAY higher.
BTW, the Browns draft status is pretty well shot next year anyway- unless they lose out. Because of the killer schedule, if the draft were tomorrow, the Browns would draft 13th.
-
Delhommeless is gone after this season. Personally, I think Wallace is getting a raw deal, eventhough I support McCoy at QB.
-
I'm not so sure. The Browns may try to re-sign him at vet minimum as the 3rd strimg qb to mentor McCoy.
Mentor?! The guy is terribad! I would rather have Derek 'Clown Shoes' Anderson mentor McCoy.
Ok.. not really. But Seneca Wallace is a better mentor than Delhomme.
-
Mentor?! The guy is terribad! I would rather have Derek 'Clown Shoes' Anderson mentor McCoy.
Ok.. not really. But Seneca Wallace is a better mentor than Delhomme.
Just because the guy can't play football anymore doesn't mean that he wasn't good at one point and it doesn't meant that he can't be a good mentor to a young QB.
Ruining threads since 1897. -
Could the reason Wallace isn't playing have something to do conditional pick the Browns owe the Seahawks for that trade?
Could the reason Wallace isn't playing have something to do conditional pick the Browns owe the Seahawks for that trade?
No. It is irrational to obtain a player, and then decide to not play him because you don't want to pay him. Especialy when the position that you drafted him to play is a back-up QB, and that is where your needs are. There is some deeper going on in this situation. It is not economics. BTW, if it was strictly economics, you'd loe the entire lockerroom. That's not happenning.
-
Mentor?! The guy is terribad! I would rather have Derek 'Clown Shoes' Anderson mentor McCoy.
Ok.. not really. But Seneca Wallace is a better mentor than Delhomme.
Just because the guy can't play football anymore doesn't mean that he wasn't good at one point and it doesn't meant that he can't be a good mentor to a young QB.
Hillis-iz-Boss said:
Just because the guy can't play football anymore doesn't mean that he wasn't good at one point and it doesn't meant that he can't be a good mentor to a young QB.I never understood the mentor thing........brady, manning, rivers, bradford, stafford, big gay, romo...........no mentor.
-
Could the reason Wallace isn't playing have something to do conditional pick the Browns owe the Seahawks for that trade?
No. It is irrational to obtain a player, and then decide to not play him because you don't want to pay him. Especialy when the position that you drafted him to play is a back-up QB, and that is where your needs are. There is some deeper going on in this situation. It is not economics. BTW, if it was strictly economics, you'd loe the entire lockerroom. That's not happenning.
No. It is irrational to obtain a player, and then decide to not play him because you don't want to pay him. Especialy when the position that you drafted him to play is a back-up QB, and that is where your needs are. There is some deeper going on in this situation. It is not economics. BTW, if it was strictly economics, you'd loe the entire lockerroom. That's not happenning.
I don't know about that. I don't think we want to lose draft picks by starting our backup QB when we know there is no chance at post season. Seneca played better than Jake, but I'm guessing they don't think he played well enough to lose a draft pick for a guy that will continue to be a backup in the future. I think it's more about the acquisition of new talent and not about the $$$.
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