@cribbs-is-the-man said:

He is replaceable, I agree. But why replace him and use draft picks to fill his spot?? IMO we have wayyy to many holes to let ILB become another one. If he wont sign for a reasonable contract then thats a problem because i agree he is not worth the big money. but if we do keep his right and/or sign him to a reasonable contract, thats one less position for the Browns to worry about.

You don't think the guys in place now are able to replace his production? The D did just fine with Trusnik, Maiava, Bowens, etc. taking his snaps. Add in Cocong and Veikune (1 year of learning to transition from DE to ILB), and that makes me pretty confident that the Browns can find someone capable of providing poor zone coverage over the middle and making tackles on RBs after five yard gains.

I am all for letting him walk and using our already on-hand depth to replace him. Getting a pick would be gravy.

@the-gipper said:

I believe Jackson IS expendable for one very simple reason: He really has not been all that good, at least not as good as we think he should be, and not nearly as good as he thinks he is. He is an eminently replaceable commodity.

It is interesting to see comments like this becoming more common here. I've felt for a while that he was nothing more than a solid tackler and very overrated, but many, especially the local media, seemed to think of him as an important cog and underrated.

Why the shift in opinion now (not necessarily you, Gipper - don't know if you fall into the camp of a recent convert or a long time "hater")? Is it the fact that our D actually got better when he was replaced with a bunch of no-names? Or has it come to the point where there is no more hope for improvement?

@ballpeen said:

No doubt QB is the toughest position to draft. With the 'bust", or not live up to expectations as high as it is it is clearly magnified when a top guy falls in to that category.

I just think conventional wisdom shows the top picks typically do better than the lower picks purely from a odds basis.

....

The great QB paradox....if you take one early and he busts, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out. If you pass on one seeking to avoid the bust factor and he pans out, you have a big problem that takes years to sort out.

Agree completely.

On thing to add, people forget that other positions taken with high picks bust almost as often. Hell, in recent Browns history alone we've taken three defensive linemen (Warren, Brown, Wimbley) and they all have been merely adequate, if not outright busts when you consider how much they were paid. We've also had a first rounder tank at RB (Green), supposedly the easiest position to transition into from college. These were are supposed to be relatively safe picks, too. "Can't miss" prospects flop all the time - busts happen at every position (Robert Gallery, Charles Rogers, Pac Man, etc.). For some reason, however, everyone bitches about the QBs.

My favorite was how everyone wanted Jamal to be the short yardage back, at which he absolutely sucked. Short yardage is all about hitting the designated hole quickly and squirting through the smallest of openings, not about bulling through a 300lb defensive tackle.

Glad somebody brought Maiava up. I was definitely impressed with his play.

Now, does this convince everyone else how overrated DQ Jackson (a.k.a., Dwayne Rudd) is? Your ILB will always make a ton of tackles - he is in the middle of all of the action. What makes a good ILB in the running game is how he takes on blockers and sheds, which impacts where plays go and where tackles are made. Maiava looked to have this down better than Jackson.

@vdogrowz said:

Ytown, how could Lerner be pixxed about Quinn getting benched given the escalators in his contract? Did BQ do anything in 2 1/2 games to show he even might be worth $11myn this yr and a big raise for next? Mangini did not draft BQ or sign him to that contract, but he has to live with it. My guess is that we'll see all we want of BQ for the rest of the season and be glad we saved the $11myn+, but I hope BQ proves me wrong

Anyone think this nickel and dime'ing isn't going to kill the franchise's relationship with players? We bitched repeatedly about Quinn's holdout, saying he would make up the money, but we now have a pretty decent chance that he was benched to avoid the escalators. What agent in his right mind will let his player compromise on their contract with the Browns by taking escalators instead of holding out for more up front bonus money? Cribbs is going to either get paid like Hester, or will hold out, even despite the fact that he sucks at WR. No chance now to get a contract with a base salary in line with being a special teams star with kickers based upon receptions, TDs, etc.

The receivers were subpar, but c'mon people. There were some that you want your receivers to catch, but there was only one Edwards-esque "hit him in the bread basket" drop. The rest were poor throws that you hope your receiver makes a good catch on. Derek's problem is and always will be that he not only throws hard, but that he simultaneously never ever properly leads his receiver on crossing routes. Everything is back shoulder or shoe top on crossing routes, and then you add the multiplier for degree of difficulty with these passes being thrown at high velocity.

No matter how much you macho men gripe about guys being paid to make these catches and they shouldn't be in the pros if they cannot, there IS such a thing as throwing too hard. It is such a recognized thing in sports that there is a specific term for it - "handcuffing." You throw the ball a little too hard and a little off target to a receiver that is only a few yards away and the receiver doesn't have time to move his hands.

@lemosley01 said:

Interesting how this changed from 'left side of our line sucks worse on the run than the right side' to 'what I ACTUALLY meant was the middle sucks'.

Of course it's hard to run up the middle when:

1) You have a rookie center

2) You have twinkle toes running. Did you notice how Jamal couldn't gain ONE LOUSY YARD on a 3rd and 1 last week; it wasn't because of the line. It was because he had decided to dance around instead of just hitting it.

And people keep yammering for him to be made a short yardage back. Short yardage is more about hitting the hole quickly and decisively than it is about about bull rushing through a LBer. A good deal of the best short yardage backs of all time were quick to the hole types (M. Allen, E. Smith, LT, Faulk), not Bettis types. Defensive players are way too big to use a plowhorse to get tough yards against a stacked line.

@hoorta said:

Yup, where's the 4 WR formations? Cribbs, Edwards and a couple of TEs ain't getting it done.

From what I've seen of Cribbs as a wideout, I doubt MoMass or Robo could do any worse.

Agreed. Cribbs as a WR has been a major disappointment, in terms of suckitude ranking behind only the right side of our o-line and Poteat.

Masters said:

Are you sure that was Cover 3 on that play? I am watching the reply of the play( http://www.nfl.com/videos/cleveland-browns...-vs-Browns-2009 ) and I am missing the cover 3 on this. I see the saftey on BE's side creaping up to the line and taking away a quick slant, 2 LBs following the both TE's release on the right side (MLB and OLB) and the other LB come up across the LOS. Doesn't seem like much of a cover 3 to me (maybe one of those variations on it?).

But I do see the window for a rope pass to BE on the inside. Of course I also see BE getting the CB to bite on the inside, and BE flashing like he is going outside but stays on his inside path.

I also think it is unlikely to be cover 3 - there is no other defender within 10 yards of BE (safety #25 only comes into the picture well after the interception has been made). Not only was he out of the shot entirely, but he was not nearly deep enough (he comes running in well after the interception has been made and is clearly running away from the line of scrimmage.) If it was a cover 3, then it was a piss poor one considering how little help the corner got against our #1 receiver. In any event, we'll never know the coverage for sure short of reviewing video of a bird's eye view of the entire play or an admission by the Vikes.

My best guess is that the bolded comment above is why they those people are saying it is at least partially BE's fault - BE either made a triple move (huh?) and faked out both the corner and his QB, or he tried to make a double move, was cut off by the corner and then broke off his route. That video clearly shows BE fake in, then cut out (he then leaves the frame of the screen on the out cut), but when the video next shows him after the pass was thrown he has clearly broken inside at some point. On a sight adjustment play, making a triple move is a no-no. My best guess is that if it is BE's fault, the latter happened - he tried to run a deep route on a double move but broke off the route after getting cut off by or tangled with the corner. Nobody makes a triple move on a audible.

@fan-of-steel-1 said:

Your coach not letting the opponent know who the QB is going to be is a lame game plan but it is not really the issue.

Mangini is a better coach than you had previously, but his decision to wait so long to name a starting QB is a bad decision. The starting QB should have been getting all the reps with the first team weeks ago. All of them. It was stupid to have the QB competition go on for so long. Now whatever QB you place in there will have to gain the support of the teammates that might have wanted the other QB, they will not have any time to gel as an offense except in game situations, and the first moment the QB has any problems there will be a QB controversy.

Bad decision Mangini.

Wholly crap, the end of days is here. I agree with FOS.

@greythan said:

I don't see how Mangini will vary from his current course: balanced reps. I think they'll be brief as is the custom in the last preseason game. I don't expect any conclusions if it plays out this way.

Now, if he deviates and doesn't spread the playing time..... we'll have something to banter about. (Not that it changes my opinion that Quinn will start against the Vikes.)

That is just it - there really isn't much playing time to spread around. The 1s are going to get maybe two series, so I think it highly unlikely Mangini will give each QB one possession with the 1s and another with the 2s to give them both two possessions (or play the entire first unit twice as long as normal). He basically has to give all of the first team possessions to one guy just because a coach would be run out of town by a mob with pitchforks and torches if a starter got lost to injury in the second quarter because a QB decision couldn't be made without another two possessions-worth of data.

My opinion - I think Mangini names the starter immediately before the last preseason game. The gig is up soon as we see who gets the start in game 4.

@solon16 said:

I don't know what all you D'qwell Jackson fans see....I don't think he's that good at all...he and Barton are just average at best!

Seconded. D'qwell makes a whole lot of tackles, but very few plays. He is solid - maybe even our best linebacker, but it is completely a case of "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Agreed mostly with the original post, but I have two additional thoughts to add.

The o-line was pretty bad all game. The Titans were getting consistent pressure without bringing extra men or running any weird stunts.

Braylon yet again left his feet to breadbasket a perfect pass thrown at facemask level (the TD). Do we have coaches? Why the hell is he still doing this?

@roach said:

i'd pay him his $640,000; and add a $100,000 bonus for each time he meets a ball carrier at the line of scrimmage and holds him to four yards or less. That won't cost much.

Glad to see I am not the only one who thinks DQ is Dwayne Rudd reincarnated. He cannot shed a block to save his life.

I am getting a little sick of the DA/BQ rehashing myself, but I don't see how anybody can watch that play and call it anything other than a QB misread almost killing his receiver.

@osusev said:

People can put you on ignore but really whatever DA has is enough to give 2 different coaching staffs pause over a 1st round highly popular draft pick. That is something that is absolutely undeniable and irrefutable. BQ has some sort of question mark to have fallen in the 1st round and continued enough that 2 different coaching staffs cant just name him the starter over DA.

Here, I'll summarize the thought processes of the two administrations for you:

GM #1 circa offseason '08 : "I have to re-sign this guy, he saved my butt from the unemployment line last season, and I can't let him go to Baltimore. Besides, it makes me look brilliant to find a starting QB for essentially free."

Coach #1 circa offseason '08 : "I can't bench this guy, he saved my butt from the unemployment line last season. Besides, that red-headed dork gave him like a bajillion dollars to stay."

GM/Coaching staff #2 circa offseason '09 : "We can't cut him, we owe like a bajillion dollars on his contract. Might as well keep him around and pray disaster befalls some other team so we can trade his butt. We'll have to sing his praises, though, to retain any semblance of value."

Now, the question is, which of those thought processes do you find most rational?

Maiava is #43, right? He didn't much impress.

The Clayton article has been updated (click the link again). It now explicitly reports that Cribbs formally requested a trade from management, and then states he thereafter released a public statement. Before the update, the only thing that stated a trade request had been made was the title of the article.

I think they just rushed a poorly-edited article to publication first in order to get the "scoop" out.

I didn't see the request in the statement either. I guess Clayton is reporting the trade request, and Cribbs released the statement to get the public on his side.

In any event, I think Cribbs will get a new contract before camp comes around.