I'll chime in here, folks...Anderson is playing because the team Captains went to Mangini and told him that the team was tired of Quinn and wanted Anderson to play, and Quinn alienating himself with the OC and HC by openly suggesting changes during installation meetings. Of course, if Quinn would have been anywhere close to productive in his three starts, it all would have been moot.
Bradford could very well slip down in the drfat, we mat have a shot at him in the middle of the draft, so when we trade down from the number one spot six times next year, we will be in good shape.
It looks from here like maybe they should have used some of his suggestions. I can see how it could alienate or upset other players and coaches, but that is a leaders job to make suggestions and not just blindly follow. What we have seen is that the qb change has not improved this team any more than the spark of actually making a change (sort of like firing a manager in the middle of a baseball season). It puts all the players on notice that their job is not secure and they play harder. The threat of change really only motivated them in the Cincy game, as well as finally giving our qb some new weapons like MM as the 2 instead of Cribbs ( a change that should've happened after week 1), a modified OL and an honest attempt to establish a run game. Our course then we trade Edwards meaning MM will not be as open as he was in Cincy. Buffalo is terrible and with the injuries to the LB's could not stop the run, but we couldn't capitalize with TD's. We won due to our special teams (amazingly not Cribbs, but Z)...sad, but better than a loss.
Should they yank Anderson, yes. Should they have done it against Buffalo...yes. Would it lead to improvement? Maybe for a game or two (with Quinn or Ratliff), but the same problems will reappear. This team is bad, just as bad/maybe worse than they were at the beginning of the season. Sure the numbers may look like improvement, but it is comparing apples to oranges and not worth a darn. Will they make a change....I doubt it. I believe Mangini has recognized that it wouldn't change the outcome. The best case is that they would see what they have in Quinn and he improves for the future, but no help for this year. Really how would it matter, we beat Buffalo by 10 instead of 3? Big deal, QB is not the problem and drafting another one early is not the solution.
Good teams develop the rest of the team and then plug in a qb and play them through the rough times so that they learn and improve with a bit of a safety net. Mangini has a plan, it may not work, but it is going to take time to know. In hindsight, the biggest blunder so far and in line with what every expert was saying, they should have traded or released one of the qb's before the season so that whoever was left would have the complete support of the team, and the opportunity to play loose w/o looking over their shoulders. It is not too late, trade either one now and start building for the future without the qb controversy.
Or if we can all accept that the Browns are bad, we could play both of them in games. Could it get any worse? This way Quinn and Anderson get reps to show what they have, Quinn probably still wouldn't get 70% of the snaps, so we could see if he can improve with experience. Obviously if one is going better that game, you ride the hot hand. It would also take some pressure off of both of them. I know conventional wisdom says this cannot work, but we went against conventional wisdom, when we kept both, and then again when we benched Quinn the first time. It's time to get unconventional, again what do we have to lose?