On chilly....strangely enough, i think hes well suited for his role. If he were the strong headed playcaller like you thought, it may develop into internal strife with patty cakes. Being that hes sat behind reid in title only, offering perspective and opinion, he could very well be a great set of eyes up in the booth to provide the aerial viewpoint. Patty cakes has another set of eyes, hopefully ones that help get this offense moving.

Answers abkund soon enough....

@choco said:

I deserve the condescension in your reply.

I did not know that Bevell called the plays for the Vikes after 2006.

Which completely changes my opinion of Childress a playcaller.

I was clearly wrong on that point, not to mention being a jack arse about it.

My point was Weeden will have weapons that Colt McCoy did not which is quite obvious.

Now whether they pan out is another story.

But clearly 1st round pick/2nd round picks are drafted to make an immediate impact.

Dude, we're talking about Trent Richardson here.

And Schwartz was a 2nd rounder IIRC and 2nd round OL are expected to make an immediate impact.

@miktoxic said:

didn't they (NFL gurus) used to think the pac 12 produced the best QBs?

i know in your other post you listed the number of starting QBs in the NFL and it did show them at the top.

i couldn't tell you what QB from where will be this year's NCAA poster boy.

The Pac-10 does produce, still, some of the best QBs. See Andrew Luck.

As for this year's poster boy, as noted, they want to put Matt Barkley up there but I see him as poor man's Colt McCoy: good college QB, but his measurables are similar too or less than Colt's. Same height/weight, but Colt was faster and with a stronger arm...yep, a stronger arm. Who else might step up to be the QB poster boy of this college season? Some possibles:

Logan Thomas Va. Tech 6/6

Landry Jones Okla. 6/4

Tyler Wilson Ark. 6/3

Aaron Murray Georgia 6/1

EJ Manuel FSU 6/5

Tyler Bray Tenn. 6/6

Zac Dysert Miami, Oh. 6/4 (the new BR?)

Barkley is 6/2

A lot of these guys have good NFL QB height except Murray and Barkley. The ACC and SEC are well represented. Note: no Big 10 ers.

@the-gipper said:

Honest, USC pales in comparison to either Cal or Stanford at producing NFL QBs.

didn't they (NFL gurus) used to think the pac 12 produced the best QBs?

i know in your other post you listed the number of starting QBs in the NFL and it did show them at the top.

i couldn't tell you what QB from where will be this year's NCAA poster boy.

@miktoxic said:

wait a minute. so you're saying bradford is a bust? their whole team has lacked (except at RB) talent ala the browns. their OL is terrible.

boy how soon you guys forget. wasn't he the one everyone was clamoring for sorta like luck and RGIII this year? i guess no one can evaluate talent in the NFL.

I don't know what anyone else was saying, but I am saying that having watched Bradford and McCoy in college for the years they played I saw very little if any difference in their capability as a QB. And I think the answer is: they both may be capable of playing/even starting in the NFL, but I saw nothing that would say these guys are extra special and will become stars in the pros.

By the way, the same can be said about Matt Barkley of USC. Overhyped merely because he plays at USC. How well have those USC QBs done lately? Palmer had a few good years, but has been mediocre for longer. Leinert a backup at best. Sanchez....mediocre.

Honest, USC pales in comparison to either Cal or Stanford at producing NFL QBs.

ok...first of all....chilly is just a pair of eyes in the box. notice how shaw says he didn't call plays in philly?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/22/brad-childress-wont-call-the-plays-in-cleveland/

second, a little blurb about only calling plays in his rookie year.

ill post it so you can read it...very, very slowly.

Childress called the Vikings’ plays in 2006 before assigning those responsibilities to offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell, who’s now with the Seattle Seahawks. Although Bevell assumed play-calling duties for the remainder of Childress’ tenure with the Vikings, Childress was heavily involved with the offense.

-> from http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/browns-hire-brad-childress-as-their-offensive-coordinator-1.272731

so what was that again you said about facts? are these "facts" supposed to be open for interpretation, or merely statements that one feels are correct even though they've done no research on the subject?

im trying not to be a dick, but try reading up before getting all contentious. these results were all from the first page of a google search....seems you dont know what you think you know.

wrt 3 rookies being weedens benefit? lets just say colt had a bunch of rookies too....and he sucked. point being, you dont depend on rookies. you hope....but it seems many are expecting things from these kids before even stepping on the field. cart before the horse, methinks.

@choco said:

Lol....3 of those poibts are rookies....the other has only ever called plays one year of his career. Shurmur is more senior in that regard.

Your second point is flat out incorrect.

Brad Childress has not only called plays for more then 1 season he has more experience in coaching (even as a HC) then Pat Shurmur.

Get your facts straight.

o Trent Richardson 'nuff said

o Brad Childress as OC instead of Pat Shurmur

o Mitchell Schwartz

o Josh Gordon

Trade? Release?

I bet he ends up on the Packers, I remember McCarthy liked him coming out of the draft.

@wrrebel said:

The difference is Bradford has the ideal arm and size for the nfl..

bradford is not that big..but his arm is decent.

boy how soon you guys forget. wasn't he the one everyone was clamoring for sorta like luck and RGIII this year? i guess no one can evaluate talent in the NFL.

@the-gipper said:

Because he ain't really that much better?

Agreed. Bradford is rather underwhelming IMO

@edromeo said:

So, if McCoy had what you perceive to be ideal arm and nfl size you would be okay with not drafting Weeden and keeping him as your starter?

Also, if Bradford has the ideal arm and size why hasn't he been significantly more productive then McCoy thus far in their careers?

Because he ain't really that much better?

@edromeo said:

I am a visiting Redskins fan.

I'm just curious about how Browns fans feel about Colt McCoy and Mike Holmgren.

From the outside looking in it seems like McCoy had potential but only produced to the level of the talent around and scheme around him.

And thanks to Holmgren/Shurmur the talent and the coaching wasn't very good.

And now it seems like they're tieing their lack of success around Colt McCoy's neck to shift the blame away from themselves.

Well, the powers that be, Holmgren and Shurmur are loathe to blame themselves for their failures to provide talent to this team, thus they must find a scapegoat in McCoy....not that McCoy didn't give them ammo to use himself as the scapegoat. I personally put the blame 75/25, the 75 on Shurmur/H&H, half of the rest on McCoy, the other half on other offensive players.

Maybe Brandon Weeden will be much superior to Colt...he will need to be, because if they have another do nothing offense, then who will get the blame? A rookie QB/RB or the coach/GM/Pres.

I find the differing perceptions between Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford interesting.

Other then McCoy playing in a much more difficult division their career production this far has been similar if not identical.

Yet McCoy is getting the axe as a starter and Bradford is entering this seasonn as the unquestioned starter.

Must be good to be a 1st round pick and benefit from being perceived as a franchise QB.

Yes, I agree that quite frankly, there is little else to differentiate them.

@wrrebel said:

The difference is Bradford has the ideal arm and size for the nfl..

Also, if Bradford has the ideal arm and size why hasn't he been significantly more productive then McCoy thus far in their careers?

@miktoxic said:

bradford had some of the same problems surrounding him that mccoy had last year. no protection and no talent (other than steven jackson) .

hell i couldn't even tell you who the ram's #1 receiver is, just like i doubt anyone could tell you the name of the browns #1.

all i know is that under the guidance of pat shurmur neither progressed. instead they regressed.

holmgren is just a FOM (fat old man) collecting a paycheck and bringing along some of his friends for a ride.

i know he means the best for the team but he is set in his old ways and won't change for nuthin. and the thing with drafting a qb every year bugs the piss out of me.

You got it wrong Mik. He is not a FOM. He is a FORM (FAT OLD RICH MAN).

don't worry choco we'll all be shiny happy people at the end of the year, just like you are today.

i guess in your world no one is held accountable for anything. must be nice.

hell i couldn't even tell you who the ram's #1 receiver is, just like i doubt anyone could tell you the name of the browns #1.

all i know is that under the guidance of pat shurmur neither progressed. instead they regressed.

holmgren is just a FOM (fat old man) collecting a paycheck and bringing along some of his friends for a ride.

i know he means the best for the team but he is set in his old ways and won't change for nuthin. and the thing with drafting a qb every year bugs the piss out of me.

I'm just curious about how Browns fans feel about Colt McCoy and Mike Holmgren.

From the outside looking in it seems like McCoy had potential but only produced to the level of the talent around and scheme around him.

And thanks to Holmgren/Shurmur the talent and the coaching wasn't very good.

And now it seems like they're tieing their lack of success around Colt McCoy's neck to shift the blame away from themselves.

I find the differing perceptions between Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford interesting.

Other then McCoy playing in a much more difficult division their career production this far has been similar if not identical.

Yet McCoy is getting the axe as a starter and Bradford is entering this seasonn as the unquestioned starter.

Must be good to be a 1st round pick and benefit from being perceived as a franchise QB.

@hoorta said:

^+1. The Browns could do a lot worse than McCoy as the backup QB.

Yeah, their backup could be Seneca Wallace

@the-cysko-kid said:

He also implies in that article that he wants to be with the browns even as a backup, and that he wants to be along for the ride.

I don't think colt as a backup is going to be a problem. Is sure as hell rather have him backing weeden up than seneca.

^+1. The Browns could do a lot worse than McCoy as the backup QB.