While We’re Waiting… Marson’s Rings, LeBron’s EWA and Fujita’s Exit

I wouldn’t mind a competition between Kolb and Wallace for the starting spot. That and a #1 WR.

Question for Mickael Pietrus: “How does it make you feel to know that by joining the team with the best record in the NBA today, you would make them a slightly worse team than the Clippers?”

Seriously, though: I thought Windy’s remarks on J.J. Hickson’s stellar performance yesterday merited mention in this morning’s post. It’s not that I didn’t notice it myself, but no one commented on it and we have to admit that J.J.’s performances range from the abysmal to the subli… well, at least to the very good for spring chicken like him. Every time he has a game like he did against Tim Duncan (13 points) and the Spurs, I think about the trade that could have sent him out of Cleveland and sigh in relief that it didn’t happen.

Was anyone else not impressed with the way Blair played last night? 0 points and 4 rebs in 11 minutes? He looked slow last night. Maybe that happens when you don’t have any ACLs in your knees.

@Chris – Giggle. Everyone was so furious we missed out on him. Early in the season many suggested he’d be a much more productive player than Hixy.

DeJuan Blair still = rich man’s Darnell Jackson (pre-dexatrim era)

@Phil M,

J.J. did some nice things last night. If you watched you probably saw…
1. Excellent ‘D’ on Duncan. 2. Glimpses of the 15 ft. jumper he can develop. 3. Strong moves to the rim. 4. Clutch free throw shooting.

But he still needs to work on… 1. Finishing at the rim and not just hoping to draw a foul 2. Catching the ball in traffic 3. Boxing out.

@Jack: Did you read the post or are you just commenting on the excerpt?

“I wouldn’t dismiss the notion as “just absurd” given that Brady Quinn has not shown any sort of development and looks very much like a career backup at this point.”

Holmgren himself has said that it takes two seasons of starting to judge a quarterback. You want to judge Quinn on twelve starts, 3 for the crumbling Crennel regime, 3 in Mangini’s first 3 games in the Braylon-poisoned locker room, and 6 when he had no credible pass catcher on the roster to speak of? That’s just absurd.

“It is very clear that Seneca Wallace is NOT less talented or less valuable a quarterback.”

What is clear is that he’s a 5’11 career backup who over seven seasons in the league has never been seen fit to be groomed as a starter. It’s clear that Quinn’s ceiling is much higher, and the potential exists that he could develop into a much more valuable asset than Wallace ever could. The idea that Quinn should or will be judged on his 12 starts so that Wallace can start is what’s hyper bowl.

Sorry for the double post: do you guys have a control switch for deleting the first (which I corrected)?

JJ showed nice fundies defending the paint last night.
Looks like he gets his schooling in practice.

@ Frowns – I think you may have it backwards. I think Wallace is the starter next season. I just don’t get the sense that the front office is enamored with Quinn and I think Holmgren has brought in one of his past guys to take over for at least the time being.

Mr. Frowns, it seems somewhat dangerous to comment on your articles when excerpts are posted here. You usually offer quite the retort.

I will, of course, concede that I did not read the post. I only read the excerpt. Having read your response, however, I’m not entirely sure if that’s relevant. Given that you started your post by calling me out on that, I assumed that I would then be made aware of at least (or more) qualifying statements. That was not the case. So my argument stands. You unequivocally and without exception always certainly speak in extremes.

Do I want to judge Brady after 12 starts? Yes, I, Jack, do. Might that be short-sighted? Yes. Still doesn’t change that fact that Brady can’t throw farther than I can see…

…my point was that it’s not “just absurd” to dispel the notion that Seneca could start. Holmgren, who is renowned for his work with quarterbacks, seems to have a decent eye for under-center talent. He doesn’t seem to high on Brady Quinn, does he? This might be insurance freeing him up to trade Quinn, draft a youngster, and give birth to the Seneca transition era.

You also suggest that Seneca Wallace should be judged because he has never been seen fit to be groomed as a started. Well, he happened to be playing behind Mr. Hustle-back these many years. But, Holmgren never saw fit in all that time to let Seneca go. Rather than tackle the minutiae though, I’ll just refocus the conversation and respond to the crux…

You write, “Here’s hoping that’s true, and that he shortly nips all this Wallace talk in the bud as soon as is practicable.” My sentiment, “don’t hold your breath.” Because I think Brady Quinn HAS been judged on these 12 starts, fairly or unfairly. Again, I said, I don’t think your wrong. But dismissing the consideration that Seneca ended up taking starting snaps for the Browns is a bit aggressive.

Thought your diction was interesting too. Not “practical” but “practicable.” Well, there’s no time like the present, right? When would it NOT be practicable to put your quarterback controversy to rest? I mean, surely you’d want to come in, clean things up, pick a direction, and charge ever onward if he was so sure that Brady is going to be his starter next year. For Holmgren I think it is certainly “practicable” but it’s not “practical” because I don’t think he’s done trying to find solutions at that position and announcing Brady as the No. 1 guy and then going and drafting someone or trading for someone would really run a muck here in Believeland. If he wasn’t hoping to make any other moves, he’d probably ave little incentive to delay such a decision. When would be a better time? After he watches him in practice? Is he really going to learn something more from watching that? Even if that were the case, that premise doesn’t fit into your argument because you seem to suggest that Holmgren already knows he’s going with Quinn, so such a move would only be a formality/academic.

That being said, your claim that “It’s clear that Quinn’s ceiling is much higher, and the potential exists that he could develop into a much more valuable asset than Wallace ever could. The idea that Quinn should or will be judged on his 12 starts so that Wallace can start is what’s hyper bowl,” is partly true. It’s not clear that his ceiling is much higher. It’s such an odd phrase that demands all sorts of logical presumption. If Quinn turns out to be a less athletic career backup, that really doesn’t indicate such a high ceiling. But yes, the potential exists that he could develop into a much more valuable asset. But it’s not hyperbole to argue that Quinn should/will be judged (and I assumed you mean that with the negative connotation) on his 12 starts, because he already has been by many football minds, like those who let him slip to 20, QB starved teams who don’t seem to eager to trade for him, Coach Mangini, countless analysts, and now, maybe, QB-guru Mike Holmgren.

Jack: That was an awfully wordy response. A few statements worth responding to:

“You unequivocally and without exception always certainly speak in extremes.”

No, I don’t, really. Again, you should read more of what I write at my website than just the excerpts here. But yes, I am not afraid to call an absurdity an absurdity when I see it, and the notion that Quinn will be tossed on the scrap heap for Wallace is that, as explained in my post.

“He doesn’t seem to[o] high on Brady Quinn, does he?”

Isn’t the point, raised by Holmgren himself in the quote at my post, that it’s impossible to be “high” or “low” on any QB who hasn’t had two seasons of starting under his belt? Another point is that Quinn’s 12 starts have come under remarkably adverse circumstances.

“When would it NOT be practicable to put your quarterback controversy to rest?”

This isn’t hard. Before the draft would be one such time, as would the heat of free agency signing period, when there was at least a theoretical chance you could get something of value for D.A. (After all, they got something for Corey Williams, who was sure to be cut anyway).

“But it’s not hyperbole to argue that Quinn should/will be judged (and I assumed you mean that with the negative connotation) on his 12 starts, because he already has been by many football minds, like those who let him slip to 20, QB starved teams who don’t seem to eager to trade for him, Coach Mangini, countless analysts, and now, maybe, QB-guru Mike Holmgren.”

It is in fact hyperbole to suggest that any such premature “judging” would be done so that Seneca Wallace could be named starter at the expense of Brady having a chance to start in an offense with some semblance of stability for the first time in his career. Or at least ridiculous.

Also, to suggest that Mangini has passed any such “judgment” on Quinn is simply wrong, and to pass on a QB in the first round or to choose not to trade for him (which of these QB starved teams you speak of is loaded with tradeable non-QB assets, anyway?) are each something completely different than tossing Quinn on the scrap heap so that a 5’11 seven-year career backup can start. Completely different. Again, it’s really not complicated.

I hope when Quinn is named the starter in training camp that you’ll show up at Frowns to admit the absurdity of this Seneca Wallace take.

Regardless of whether you (the universal you) think Wallace is better than Quinn, or vice-versa NEITHER guy has gotten it done.

The only notable differences being that Wallace hasn’t gotten it done longer and Quinn couldn’t get it done w/o a Hasselbeck in front of him.

@ MP34: Color commentary is supposed to be much, much more than hyperbole. They should bring stats, analysis and an insider’s view, that’s why they’re always former players. AC very rarely gives any insight into the game that a junior high player doesn’t already know. I watch a lot of games online and it’s a joy to hear the opposing team’s announcers. They’re not total homers (at least not all of them) and they actually say interesting things.

In 3 starts Seneca had 65 % completions, 700 yards, 3 Pass TDs, 1 Rush TD, and 2 INTs. Definitely played better in start 3, then game 1 (where Im guessing Hasselbeck got injured). Im not claiming huge upgrade, but with decent numbers, a new WCO in cleveland (that he is experienced in) and a solid running game, i just think you cut ties now with Quinn and try to get the best compensation after. If not, then Ill be the first one to come back and admit that Frowns is right.

I agree with Frowns. I think Quinn needs to be given this season and see what he can do. The guy hasn’t been put in a position to succeed since he has been here. With that said I think Wallace is a guy that can tutor Quinn if they install a new offense. I don’t get why people get so enamored with big arms and being able to bomb the ball 60 yards….give me a guy that can throw 10-15 yards accurately and we’ll win more than we lose. I understand you need to stretch the field at points and for that Brady has a more than adequate arm.

Mr. Frowns,
Yes, it was exceptionally wordy. More a rant. My apology was directed at you to[o].

As far as the draft suggestion, I agree that the draft/FA period is one such time. But let’s not for one second be no naive to suggest that DA has trade value that we are somehow “protecting” by not saying Brady is our guy. C’mon. And as to the potential trade of BQ to one of many QB-starved teams…why would it be important that they were loaded with tradeable non-QB assets? We couldn’t get more than a 3rd or 4th rounder for Quinn at this point.

Also, the playful statement “You unequivocally and without exception always certainly speak in extremes” was a joke. I don’t have a lot of facts about your typical prose, so I made an extreme comment about it without all the information sort of for effect…

Again, I’m not saying Seneca is the starter. I’m just saying that the acquisition raises for me many more doubts about Brady’s future than it does for you.

You argue that Mangini hasn’t passed judgment on Quinn, that to say so is “simply wrong.” Really? Then why did he constantly put him on par with DA? Why did he replace Quinn with DA after he played horribly and proved incapable of throwing a 12 yard down and out? Isn’t benching your starter in favor of a guy that you seem to think belongs in the toilet a pretty strong judgment? Or was that still the QB competition?

Interesting too that you only rebuffed the claim that MANGINI hadn’t made a judgment about Quinn. What about everyone else I mentioned? Besides, it’s pretty likely, Mr. Frowns, that the Browns, Mangini, and Holmgren have, like so many other football minds, decided that Quinn isn’t the answer. They might give him another shot. He might “deserve” it, but it doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t have the talent to make it happen–regardless of who’s out there to katch dat bawl. I just don’t think trading for Seneca shows a lot of confidence and I’m just not as emphatically certain or overwhelmingly convinced that Brady ends up starting the season or as the starter for the whole season (injuries notwithstanding).

I will very gladly agree to come to the Cleveland Frowns site and say, yeah, Quinn ended up starting, you were right. Gotta be the best odds in Vegas though, so I don’t think it will be a revelatory moment. I won’t, however, “admit the absurdity of this Seneca Wallace take” because I’ve said nothing that suggests that that is my opinion. This whole pleasant convo began because I said you were a bit two hyperbolic. And you are. It’s not the sure thing you think, and I don’t even know if it would be the best thing for the future of the team. But again, I don’t know. What I do know is that Mangini, Holmgren, and What-the-Heck’s-his name? know much more about it than we do, and to make a move to get a backup QB with a lot of starting experience seems a much more significant hedging of the bets and maybe implies something about how the new front office regards Brady. That’s all. Just think it’s still like George Clooney, up in the air.

You seem to imply BQ can someday be good. I don’t think he can. But I’m not whole-heartedly opposed to seeing him get a shot in a stable situation. So now that I’ve agreed to satisfy your wish, will you agree to come on here and admit that it might have been a bit of a stretch to argue that the front office doesn’t already know Quinn doesn’t have NFL talent?

PILE ON FROWNS!!!!!!!!!

Jack: There are a lot of good reasons why Mangini staged a competition between Quinn and Anderson last season. More than 11 million of them. Not worth rehashing here.

Also, I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this, but Holmgren himself has said it takes two seasons of starting before you can make a reasonable evaluation. Quinn has started 12 games, again, under most adverse circumstances. So again, I do think it’s a tremendous stretch to argue that “the front office doesn’t already know Quinn doesn’t have NFL talent” not least because Holmgren has said as much, but also because, how could anyone know given what Quinn’s had to go through here? (Despite your opinions on Quinn’s arm strength and his potential. Do you really think Matt Hasselbeck has a much better gun?)

Matt#2: I’m not sure what your point is, and I can’t imagine what the scenario would be where prematurely scrapping Quinn would be the right “executive decision.” Unless, I guess, you were going to draft a rookie who you planned to make the starter right away or had someone in mind who you thought would obviously be better than Quinn. (Who could that be? It couldn’t possibly be Kevin Kolb.)

Stin4y- I understand BQ had a lot of things goin against him. I mean you dont even mention the WRs who couldnt catch a cold. But there were also plenty of times where he had time to do something and threw an errant pass, or behind a guy. Our OL really was not terrible last year. Many of the sacks were due to the QB (whoever was under center) having to hold the ball for 5+ seconds for a WR to be open. now, the OL wasnt good, but as shown in the last 4-6 games, it could be decent.

@bobby Agree’d but

a)thats partially on our WR talent (look how many check downs Quinn was forced to take, not to mention Mo Mass running incorrect routes)

b)That’s part of his development. You can say what you want about 12 games but the fact is it wasn’t 12 straight starts. Brady’s career has been a variation of the game “red light, green light”. I would argue that those 12 starts really count as less due to the fact no one would stick with him and allow him to learn.

I just want to be clear..i’m not one of those over the top Brady is the next Manning guys. I’m just saying he needs a shot before anyone can cast clear judgment on him. If he falls flat on his face or regresses this year fine put Wallace in and dump him.

Frowns,

My point assumes that Holmgren sees the job at hand being to get a west coast thing going in Cleveland, that the QB is the main liaison between the offense and the coaching/coordinating staff, and that understanding a west coast offense well enough to be the main liaison in establishing a west coast offense is more sure with someone with experience in it (Wallace) than with someone who, while maybe a quick study, doesn’t know what it’s supposed to look like (BQ).

My point is this: BQ may be reasonably seen as less fit for the job at hand than Wallace.

“Prematurely” is conclusory, no?

Frowns

(Right, on the Daboll v. Holmgren thing)

The round in which he was drafted does not add to his value, it was a judgment of value based on limited information. (If we had the luxury of hindsight, BQ may have slipped a round in the draft.)
His college performance is – in football years – ancient history, and it wasn’t on the ascension when it ended.
His pedigree?? Irish?

It’s not just 12 starts, either. He was on the team and in practice, and deemed unfit performance-wise, plan-wise, or health-wise to start more (in a non-west-coast offense).

“Quinn’s potential upside” – assuming we haven’t already seen it – may cost more to discover than it delivers.
I would think that, to now change the offensive philosophy, estimating or guessing at such a cost-benefit analysis of mining BQ’s upside is necessary now and, thus, not premature.

BQ would not be being judged, they must make an educated guess as to whether he’s the man for this job. They may think it’s highly likely that BQ is the man for a starting QB job somewhere else. They may also think that BQ is the man to learn a west coast system here as a backup. They may decide to start BQ, but it’s no slam dunk.

Frowns,

(really.)

Twelve pro starts provide information (I do not, by the way, stipulate that there is nothing to evaluate in his (sadly mismanaged) NFL career but 12 starts). You’d have to explain how his college performance provides more now in determining whether he is the man for the job at hand.

“Whatever the cost of starting Quinn this year, it won’t be any bigger than any upside to starting Seneca Wallace.”
Well, that’s the question.
Your argument seems to be “go with the first round draft pick 6′3 fourth-year guy who’s never had a chance over the 5′11 eighth year career backup.”

Quinn’s being a first-rounder is not a premise, sorry.
Not having a chance, while tragic, is not a premise, either.
Four inches could matter.
Four years: Some may say experience over youth, others will say future over past. I think a rub there is that BQ knows the past style of offense and Wallace knows the future style.

If all that adds up to a slam dunk of Quinn over Wallace for you, then I’d say you’re partial.

I like BQ in Mangini ball. BQ’s got guts. (Maybe he’s a little brittle.) But, as a fan, I’ve grown to want to see BQ next year. But Mangini ball is gone.

I’d love to see BQ learning the west coast offense as a starter. I’d love to see the whole team trying to get a handle on it.

Does Holmgren envision that BQ starts while the Browns get a handle on the west coast offense?

I would not be surprised if the answer to that is “no.”

I would not at all be dismayed if the answer was “yes.”

I like BQ.