Browns may use both Delhomme and Wallace

[DaBrowns]

The old adage that if you have two quarterbacks you actually have none comes from a time before the WildDawg took the NFL by storm. Now if you have two quarterbacks, you might be in good shape -- especially if one is a pocket passer and one is an athlete who can make plays with his feet.

 

At least, that's what Browns coach Eric Mangini is hoping, as he considers using both Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace in 2010.

 

"I don't think you could rule out the possibility of having them both play," Mangini said Thursday, per the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I think Seneca has had a really nice camp. It's a different style than Jake's, which is good because it puts some different pressures on the defense."

 

Actually, the Browns might even have three quarterbacks, as Mangini wants to use receiver/return man Josh Cribbs as a WildDawg quarterback in addition to both Delhomme and Wallace.

 

"Seneca gives you some flexibility to do some things, just like Jake has certain things that he does," Mangini said. "If you can incorporate them both in a plan that makes sense, that works, then that could be a good thing. Then you have a guy like Josh Cribbs, he presents different problems. Now you put Josh Cribbs and Seneca in the game together, they can present different problems."

 

Using different quarterbacks to present defenses with different problems sounds intriguing. But it also sounds like the Browns aren't completely confident in entrusting their offense to Delhomme's arm.

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...me-and-wallace/

[HowieDawg]

is it just me or is this a bit worrying? I'd rather have one QB that worked than trying to mix up plays with several. I'll all for a change of pace / scheme and having the odd play with a change of QB in a game where we need to keep the enemy honest but I don't like wholesale talk of a pattern emerging where we constantly mix it up.

 

I'd be surprised if we saw to much swapping about - I'm not sold on the idea. It's probably all offseason bollocks anyway, I suppose it beats a coin toss explanation.

[mopaji]

is it just me or is this a bit worrying? I'd rather have one QB that worked than trying to mix up plays with several. I'll all for a change of pace / scheme and having the odd play with a change of QB in a game where we need to keep the enemy honest but I don't like wholesale talk of a pattern emerging where we constantly mix it up.

 

I'd be surprised if we saw to much swapping about - I'm not sold on the idea. It's probably all offseason bollocks anyway, I suppose it beats a coin toss explanation.

 

 

I don't think you'll have to worry about the mix up. You may see 1 or 2 gadget backfields a game when we are playing aggressive defenses but that's about all I expect and hope to see. Mangini is old-school and would prefer to beat your ass rather than gimmick you into laughter. (Chris Palmer). With that said, having Wallace and Cribbs does allow you to do some clever things you wouldn't otherwise be able to do. Maybe on a 3rd and 2 at the opponent's 45 with 3 minutes left and down by 3. The hesitation the formation would command from the defense after the snap would allow you to pick up those 3 yards with Cribbs, Wallace, or whatever RB is on the field. That's the type of situation you will see it in. Not in regular situations.