Please, respond to this post with one of your poorly concocted insults. It's tragically hilarious.

@edwardg said:

Drennan isn't my favorite, but he's exactly right on this one. It makes no long-term sense to not be using this year to evaluate Quinn. It makes no sense to give up on him after 2 1/2 games in a lost year. DA is a backup. He'll never be recognized as a top 10 QB in the NFL. Too inconsistent.

They have already made their evaluation. He sucks. Maybe they are wrong, but they flat are telling us he stinks butt.

Yeah, DA is a backup, but that is better than a guy who doesn't belong in the league.

@chieforangeblood said:

Yes, but he was bad almost all of last year and for the last few games of 2007.

Drennan isn't my favorite, but he's exactly right on this one. It makes no long-term sense to not be using this year to evaluate Quinn. It makes no sense to give up on him after 2 1/2 games in a lost year. DA is a backup. He'll never be recognized as a top 10 QB in the NFL. Too inconsistent.

@thaak said:

I don't ever recall hearing that one.

When I don't think the team I like has a chance to win, I could not care less if the loss is more or less exciting. But that's just me.

I hope I am wrong, but I think when this season is done, yesterdays game is going to be the exception more than the norm.

@thaak said:

I thought the complaint was holding onto the ball too long.

Masters said:

Investments like CLE made in CLE all but require you give it a shot. While there have been exceptions in the NFL, what has happened in CLE is far from the norm.

If you read the opening post questions and what Drennan is going on about, you'd understand why he is still saying it. I'll refresh it here:

"How can someone who has made their living evaluating and reporting sports be so blind to the obvious factts that the rest of us see? Bruce wants to give Quinn the whole year to show what he has, win or lose. And he says that if Quinn does not work out we will have to draft a new QB because Anderson isnt a starter, but a back-up QB. Now if Brady Quinn would have come out this year and put up the same exact numbers that Anderson did, would Bruce say Quinn is just a back-up?"

So unless you believe DA is the future of this franchise, you can understand what Drennans point truly is.

I am not saying Drennan is right, but I can't really say he is wrong either.

To be honest, I thought that Quinn looked very vanilla. It wasn't the playbook or being handcuffed with the play calls. Time and time again the announcers would discuss a wide open Cribbs or Edwards 30 yards downfield, and Quinn wouldn't even look, even though there wasn't that much of a rush, and would immediately look to dump off to his TE, RB, or short route.

If he can't at least look at the field and see his guy wide open and attempt the throw, for fear that he will miss the over the top Safety or dropping LB, then screw him.

I'd rather watch a game like yesterday, win or lose, than a game like the Vikings or Denver with the way Quinn played, even had we won the game.

Yes, I want to win more than lose. But I hate watching unexciting football too.

@thaak said:

Yes... So what.

No... See my answer to the 2nd question you posed. Because he looked pretty good, the OP has a point, and the reporter and you do not.

But he still did the same things DA has always done.

Investments like CLE made in CLE all but require you give it a shot. While there have been exceptions in the NFL, what has happened in CLE is far from the norm.

If you read the opening post questions and what Drennan is going on about, you'd understand why he is still saying it. I'll refresh it here:

"How can someone who has made their living evaluating and reporting sports be so blind to the obvious factts that the rest of us see? Bruce wants to give Quinn the whole year to show what he has, win or lose. And he says that if Quinn does not work out we will have to draft a new QB because Anderson isnt a starter, but a back-up QB. Now if Brady Quinn would have come out this year and put up the same exact numbers that Anderson did, would Bruce say Quinn is just a back-up?"

So unless you believe DA is the future of this franchise, you can understand what Drennans point truly is.

I am not saying Drennan is right, but I can't really say he is wrong either.

Masters said:

Did DA showing anything different from what he has shown over his last 10 starts?

Did CLE invest draft picks to go into the 1st round to draft Quinn?

When you look at the answers to those questions, you can see why Crennan is saying what he is saying.

No... we all know they didn't win... but the game was actually exciting. Doesn't mean I'm satisfied, but for once I'm not repulsed either.

Yes... Yes, his last 10 starts he sucked. This one he looked pretty good.

Yes... So what.

No... See my answer to the 2nd question you posed. Because he looked pretty good, the OP has a point, and the reporter and you do not.

@chieforangeblood said:

I am pretty sure if you dumbed yourself down anymore you'd drown in the rain.

@chieforangeblood said:

He doesn't understand your humor because it's not funny, but, way to backpedal and try to make the claim of 'humor'. I can see you'll be a fun whipping boy.

Good thing DA had Massaquoi to bail him out of all of those bad throws yesterday, huh?

@chieforangeblood said:

Uh huh..... So I guess I should be seeing you posting one of those articles that reflect the FACT you claimed real soon.

Oh, and I have a sense of humor. When you post something remotely witty I will laugh. Though I suspect it might be a long wait for me

@chieforangeblood said:

Masters- By the looks of your comments you just stumbled in from the garage from a long afternoon of huffing paint thinner.

And on to the insults after realizing you put your foot in your own mouth.....

If my choices are stumbling in from the garage after huffing paint thinner, or your level, I'll take some dutch boy blue please.

Masters- By the looks of your comments you just stumbled in from the garage from a long afternoon of huffing paint thinner.

@chieforangeblood said:

Seems from one of your earlier posts that you are the one that doesn't remember the first time DA stepped on the field in a Browns uniform.

@chieforangeblood said:

The offense moved the ball and SCORED Sunday (twice)

The fact that we wasted a 1st rounder on a bad QB (Quinn) does not mean we have to play him

Maybe Quinn fans understand yours and Drennans twisted logic, but the facts and stats prove you wrong. You can polish a turd (Quinn) all you want, but in the end its still gonna be a turd. But the fact is Mangini thinks the Quinn turd is as polished as it will get, so its time to flush Brady.

If you want to be technical (and ACCURATE), DA won 10 of his first 18 games, or doesn't 2006 count? Of course that leaves out the 3-6 from last season. So far DA has seasons of 0-3, 10-5, 3-6. Tell me, which of these don't fit with the others?

@chieforangeblood said:

I do remember the first time he stepped on the field against KC. He threw well on a KC team that Frye was lighting up before his injury (and Frye statistically did better against).

So why wasn't DA able to make those guys look good last year? Do you see the problem with your straw man argument there. Also, Winslow isn't exactly doing poorly on what is very bad team this year. But I guess you think guys making circus catches game in and game out is the QB making the receiver look good.

Based on your closing line, I am going to venture a guess that you actually are still doing homework.

@chieforangeblood said:

I'm not sure how you can make that statement and, at the same time, suggest that Mangini deserves 2 or 3 years (or even 1 year). This TEAM is still 0-4, and, prior to yesterday, what had Mangini and staff done to show that they would be successful?

Two well-argued and reasoned points of view.

I think Chip's version is closest to the truth: Mangini felt like the threat of DA would loosen things up, and he was right on that front. The offense certainly improved.

But, whomever you support, it's undeniable that Cincy's D is not of the caliber of our first three opponents, who are now a combined 10-1 and all three of whom are now certifiable playoff contenders.

So, Quinn looked awful against three very good teams and DA looked only decent against a decent team.

And that's the problem with the timing of the QB switch: it didn't allow for a reasonable sample size to determine just how good (or bad, some would say) Quinn really is at this point.

Again: we just still don't know and now, probably won't. That's obviously okay with Mangini but it remains a questionable way to build a franchise.

@chip-banks said:

Who's to say that adding one constant (Anderson) doesn't actually give Mangini a better baseline for evaluation the pieces he has on offense where a dogged devotion to Quinn might leave us to ponder whether it's the chicken or the egg?

Look. Mangini and Daboll have seen Quinn's capabilities in practice. Quinn has warts on him. He's inaccurate throwing the ball over 20 yards in the air on a line. He's a middle-of-the-field QB. That doesn't mean he can't play at a high level in the NFL with a little improvement. But it might mean that Mangini was only a short push to determining that Quinn is NOT his franchise QB. If you've made that decision, developing Quinn isn't really important. And why pay him $11 million to learn on the job if you believe he's not the answer?

Mangini dumped Rucker and Bell, BTW, who also represented fair investment from the previous regime.

My guess is that Mangini wants to build a running game and have a QB who can stretch the defense. That guy might not be Anderson, but my guess is that he's more Anderson-like than Quinn-like.

If Mangini is convinced that he does not have a franchise QB on this roster, this is the right move. Even if not the popular one.

Holy cow, that was the best, most reasonable post on the QB switch that I've read on here.

Nice job, Chip. Please post more.

@chieforangeblood said:

Most NFL experts, including Bill Walsh would strongly agree with you on the number of starts.

You must be someone who likes to leave out those first 3 starts in 2006 for DA.

If you think Winslow and Edwards are hardly average talents.

JokersWild- If you want to worship some ex-felon egomaniac (Drennan) who insists he knows everything, go ahead. If you want to support a loser QB (Quinn) feel free. I dont put much stock in a females opinion when it comes to sports.

If it takes 6 games to judge a QBs talent, go back and look at Andersons first 6 games. Looks like DA should be the next Tom Brady. And Anderson was surrounded by average players when he compiled his stats.

DA and Quinn both have the exact same playbook. They call the same plays for each QB. DA can throw a football and Quinn cant, thats why the same plays look so different. DA can execute, Quinn needs to be executed. The fact that people think they are handcuffing Quinn is a joke. Lets just sit around and lose for 2 years until Quinn has convinced every last one of you that he blows. Thankfully Mangini only needed 10 quarters to see the truth.