The case for #10 in '10

I've seen enough of Brady Quinn to know that I want to see more of Brady Quinn in 2010.

My rationale is simple:

We have too many needs at too many positions to draft another young, inexperienced QB in 2010.

Without more weapons and a rebuilt OL (remember when OL was a team strength? Sigh.), no QB will win for us in 2010 regardless. So if a QB is going to have to sink or swim on the job in 2010, it may as well be the one that we already have, a young vet who will be fighting for his very NFL existence next year and will play his heart out.

Also, regardless of the new regime, we will need more foundational, impact players. I believe we should focus on offensive veterans at RB, OL and TE and defensive veterans at CB, S, and LB in FA and then go BPA in the draft.

I'd like to see Suh and Tate (or an equally explosive RB or WR in the 2nd) for sure and then BPA all the way down. I honestly don't think anything matters as much as guys who will make the team and contribute quickly. No more projects, no more choir boys. It's gotta be players in 2010.

So, in my scenario, Quinn leads a younger and improved offensive unit and DQJ leads a younger and improved defensive unit in 2010.

If there isn't a significant upgrade in the play of either player, we jettison both and draft their replacements in 2011. But at least we'll have built a sturdier foundation before tearing out either guy.

@atenears said:

I'd say Defense helps the Offense more.

Thanks for answering my question, Ate, and I disagree totally with you.

I think points on the board make everyone better. The name of the game is to outscore the opponent, after all. And the unit responsible for points is the offense.

Defense wins championships, I agree, but only if there are points on the board to allow a win to occur. 3-0 is nice but dangerous living. 27-14 is better and 34-31 is just as good as either of them.

It's about points. It's ALWAYS about points.

You really disagree with me? Just look at two games I watched this weekend: ours and the Bears-Bungles.

The Packers scored quick and easy, going up big and allowing their D to attack and play loose, feeling good that if they happened to let up some points, the O could get 'em back. Of course, they didn't need the O to score more than the first TD but I'm sure they didn't mind the cushion.

Then check out what the Bungles did to the Bears. Four possessions, four scores, 24 points. Forced an already DA-like Cutler to have to try to pass his team back into it; guess what? It didn't work. 3 picks and a fumble guaranteed the Bungles win.

Would you say that the Bungles D won that game? Of course not. Palmer torched the crumbling Bears D and showed what a real QB does for a team. He makes it look easy. He inspires confidence. HE PUTS POINTS ON THE BOARD.

Oh, there's that pesky QB mention again. Hmm...why does that keep happening? Maybe because in both the games I just mentioned, two legit QBs destroyed the opposing D's and effectively decided the contests in the first quarter.

You can try to argue that the defenses weren't good enough and that it's about as chicken-or-egg as it gets but I'd simply say:

Which QB would you rather have had this weekend, in either of those games, regardless of the defense?

I rest my case.

@atenears said:

I believe he is only trying to bring attention to the defensive problem. If the thread was titled 'Defense should shoulder some blame', no one would read it because BQ or DA ain't in the title.

That's all he's attempting to do ... let's not read too much more into it. There are plenty of BQ & DA threads out there, this one is one of the few trying to shed some light on a real dark problem that no one discusses at the Southern Californian rainbow parties, and that is our defense sucks.

Um...huh?

I'm not "reading" into anything. Roach brought up DA, not me. I asked roach if he felt that DA was as bad as the D. If he does, we're in agreement. If he doesn't, I'm confused.

And I didn't say a word about BQ. You did.

Anyway, my question stands and since you're speaking for roach here, you can answer it too:

Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?

You can leave the QB out, if it makes you feel better. I think it's a legit question in a thread about the D, don't you?

roach, I agree that the D was putrid but I don't see why you'd try to justify one aspect of putrid with the other.

If you agree DA is putrid, then we're on the same page. But if you're saying DA gets -- ANOTHER -- pass because the D was putrid, well, I don't get that at all.

The fact is that putrid begets putrid and competence begets competence.

I say we start with the coaches and then the QB and then the RB and then the D.

Fix the top and the rest will get better.

Put another way: DA getting better would help the D. The D getting better doesn't help DA.

That is honestly the worst uniform I've ever seen. It rivals the Bengals for awfulness.

@flugel said:

It's OUR house that Stan built for us Damajuki. This was always ANYTHING goes until ultimatims and behind the back emails perpetuated constant fussing at the mods. I ENJOYED alot of people that left and I hated losing many of them. That said, if I built this board and read constant fussing about volunteer mods and an alleged declining quality of the board and it's leadership, I think I'd be every bit as frustrated with every volunteer and leader that rarely heard the following 2 words: THANK YOU. It sounds alot different than F--- YOU from where I sit.

I've never stopped arguing QBs with Stan since the day I met him. I imagine that continues until we stop looking like an expansion team. Stan's opinion of Brady Quinn has ZERO to do with what kind of board leader he has been for years. Let's end this nonsense.

- Tom F.

Flugs, thanks for the response.

I think you and Kathy are touching on another issue at play here: this place was primarily -- and apparently is again -- a hangout for Stan and those of you who are personal friends with Stan. Those of us who are just internet pals who met through this place obviously don't have the same connection as the rest of you and I think this split reflects that. Stan has pretty much made it clear he's happier hanging with his friends and not dealing with the issues of running a public forum.

I think that's great. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with him doing that; it's his place and I respect that.

I have no problem lurking here and enjoying the interaction between you all. That aspect is one of the reasons I hung out here, after all; it seemed like real people talking, and I liked that.

My only issue is with how it went down. I'm not interested in blame; I'm interested in honesty and respect and I think those two things went lacking for a long while -- on MANY people's parts -- before things got out of hand.

Again, I'm only speaking up in defense of those of us who liked being here but were effectively told we weren't wanted. I have no problem with Stan decidincg who should be here and who shouldn't but I do have a problem with other people weighing in with their own personal biases and skewing the facts of the case.

That's all I'm saying. I appreciate you Originals speaking up and I really respect your support of your friend Stan. That's not phony internet sarcasm; that's the truth.

Best,

Juki

@kshutchins said:

I've stayed quiet about this entire thing because somehow I've managed to stay above the fray. You're correct that people left because they didn't like what Stan did. Stan didn't do those things arbitrarily, without being provoked. He didn't wake up one morning and say, 'Gee, what can I do to aggravate the snot out of a group of posters on the board?" He acted out of frustration and a need to take control of a situation that was not of his doing. (Please read the rest of this note before hitting the reply button.)

I have my own opinion about who acted childishly, unethically, understandably, or whatever. It doesn't matter to you or anyone else so I'll keep my opinion to myself, thank you very much. I suggest others do the same.

The core group of folks who created, developed, and maintained this site for the enjoyment of Browns fans are still here and I consider them friends. One doesn't abandon their friends over some silly nonsense on a sports message board. What happened here has happened on every message board I've ever been on since the dawn of computers for one reason or another. (And yes, I've been around that long. I used a slide rule in high school and I remember booting an Atari computer with a tape drive, monochrome monitors, and the day when Prodigy was an innovation.) There's always a point where opinions polarize or trolls create chaos, or some self-important blowhard gets hungry for control and stomps off with trailing admirers. I'll leave it to you to decide what happened here. It doesn't really matter. Life goes on. It will all sort itself out and in a couple of weeks, none of the newbies will know or care about any of this.

So everyone should just mind their own business, and get back to enjoying yapping about the Browns as much as they can in the light of this miserable series of football seasons. If you want to do that here, welcome! If you want to do that somewhere else, I, for one, could not POSSIBLY care less. If you want to yammer about who was right or wrong or who likes whom, or who's "the best" please pass notes in study hall or detention.

Hey Kathy, great response. Thanks for choosing my post to respond to!

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Stan's actions. And I disagree that your opinion doesn't matter; in fact, I would say your opinion matters MUCH more than most people's simply because you express your opinion like an adult and like a human being.

But I agree totally on the rest of your post. Life does go on.

But that doesn't mean people get to make up or revise history to suit the current situation. The only reason I spoke up was to counter-act this impression some are trying to create that all of us choosing to post elsewhere are simply following one particular person or have an issue with this or that.

My issue was primarily with the recent tone of conversation and the reaction to that conversation. I think this is the case for many.

I was gone last weekend and missed the final meltdown so I'm going to limit my comments to what I DO know.

And what I know is that the reason this board split is because the owner of this board took drastic action that alienated a number of posters.

It's just that simple.

It was not about opinions, or disagreements or name-calling; it was about Stan taking a stand that he obviously felt he had to take and about people (myself included) who did not appreciate the stand he took nor the way he went about taking it.

I don't see why everyone is tip-toeing around that fact. It's Stan's house; he can do what he wants.

People that don't like it can leave, and many did. But let's not pretend it was about anything more than the owner of this place taking action and a bunch of people not liking it. That's what it was about, pure and simple.

As for feeling allegiance to one site or the other? We're all Brownsaholics here, fellas. Both places are servin'. It's not about the Kool-Aid, it's about who you wanna drink with.

I'll be drinkin' my Kool-Aid where it's the most fun and the least annoying.

Nice quote, Solon. Interesting stuff.

I would agree that 90% of teaching is getting the student to actually believe they have the ability to get things done.

It's not even about having natural talent. The talent sets the ceiling but the confidence and desire set the floor.

The key thing in this quote, to me, is the idea of TRUST. A player has to TRUST that a coach will allow him the space to let his ability come out. Lack of trust is deadly in all relationships but I'd think especially so in the high-stakes sports world.

I've never played football but I'd imagine I'd want to KNOW that a coach has my back. Not just THINK he does. It would absolutely matter to me, just like it matters to me in my job.

Trust and respect really are key. Without those two things, no relationship will survive, let alone one predicated on victory as a condition of the relationship continuing.

Man, this guy looks legit.

How sad is it that what I look forward to most is drafting guys?

Sigh...

Weis is done at ND. Doesn't matter that we're better and that we lost by a "respectable" 7.

That 1-13 stat is damning but still worse: 0-5 against USC.

I don't care how good they are. Stanford has beat them. Washington has beat them.

We have not.

I'm fed up with cheering for my bad football teams coached by guys that seem to think being tough means making faces and stalking around yelling at people.

Mangini seems slightly more intelligent than that. Weis does not.

It's just old, man. I haven't been proud of one of my teams in a LOOOOOOOOONG time.

Yeah, lots of younger people feel that way. I think it's because you guys have grown up in a hyper-cynical era in which sarcasm and sophomorism reign in pop culture.

Bands that show genuine emotion and wear their hearts on their sleeve freak a lot of younger people out, I think.

Either way, you should check out the live show if for no other reason than to tell you grandchildren you did because we won't see anything like U2 ever again.

It truly is a spectacle worth every penny. And I don't say that lightly.

Great thread, guys.

One thing to throw in here that's being overlooked in the mathematical sorcery and the attempts vs. completions debate:

It very well could be that the formula works so well because it takes into account the very things you are arguing about.

It rewards BOTH completions and attempts and though I can see Lum and Chip's point about it being skewed towards completions, I'm not sure that I can buy the argument that's a bad thing.

It is called passer rating, after all, as in, "one who throws the ball".

Is it unreasonable to reward passers whose passes ACTUALLY COUNT, i.e., are completed? We do want the passes to be caught, right?

Seems to me that high completion % for a QB is the same as a high first-pitch strike % for a pitcher: neither GUARANTEES success (lots of other variables impact the end result in both cases) but both are highly correlated with success and in both cases you'd much rather have a high degree of success in that area than take your chances with the alternative (low completion/low strike rate).

@lumbergh said:

Talk about spot on. I think I should buy a lottery ticket tonight.

Will you answer a serious question, for once:

Why are you like this?

I mean, message boards are ultimately about discussion but you are not interested in discussion.

You are interested in voicing your opinion and you have two opinions that you voice repeatedly. Any and all attempts to engage you in discussion are met with silence, crassness or a snide remark and that's all. There is not even the most basic attempt at human dialogue.

So I sincerely am reaching out, as seriously as an internet message board post can be from one actual person to another:

Why are you like this?

I'm for drafting whomever Alo tells us to draft.

Seriously, can we get this guy a job with the Browns?

I'll never understand how so-called "professionals" mess it up so often while so-called "amateurs" like Heck and Alo always have the goods.

Whatever Alo says, I agree with.

I don't think he sucks. I think he's over-rated by the coaches at this point.

I've been saying for forever that he needs to become our Bus and be rotated in with the other backs, namely Harrison.

I just don't get the 31 carries thing at this point.

Seems to me we'd be better off mixing things up. Still don't get why we don't.

The funniest thing about gcarl's OP is that he doesn't get that both videos are straight-up, world-class satire, i.e., what they depict is TRUE but is purposefully selective and OVER-EXAGGERATED to make a point.

Which is exactly what Michael Moore is the master of: exaggerating a point with selective information to make a strong point.

This whole thread is why his movies are hilarious. Not only are they funny in and of themselves, the reactions by those who completely miss the point is even funnier.

So, gcarl, to translate for you: Cleveland is in fact suffering and those youtube videos are trying to show that suffering in a way that people actually pay attention to, i.e., humor.

It's an age old tactic which has befuddled people like you since the Irish thought Swift really was eating babies.

Never stops being funny though...

Congrats, shep. That's good stuff. Keep us posted and good luck to your boy.

I've only got a little one and I'm proud of him when he says "poopies" as he grunts one out.

I can only imagine how much better it gets.

Zombo said:

I can't imagine a scenario where we would actually lose.

You guys are putrid, your QB has no balls, your coach is a robot and your team is about to give up on him.

Zombo

Hmm. Couldn't he say the same about us?

Oh, wait. You said NO ball, not HORSE balls.

My bad.

Um...bye?