shepwrite Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 That seems to be the question... and when you leave out Delhomme, it doesn't sound quite so crazy. Wallace is just 30 and can at least make the claim that he was playing good football when he got hurt. He had a passer rating of 124 in the half before he was hurt, and almost 90 overall. But you do have to factor in: In Seattle, Wallace was never taken seriously as a starter. He usually seemed to get "exposed" the longer he played: He isn't a field general, rarely changing plays at the line, and his accuracy downfield is really suspect. That said, he's mobile and has an upper-bracket arm. He seemed to be getting comfortable in the offense before he was hurt. Unlike the Delhomme signing, I was happy to get Wallace. On the other hand, I doubt anybody within the Browns organization really thinks Seneca Wallace is the long-term starter for the Browns. I would say it's either McCoy... or someone who isn't the roster, like Kolb, Luck, or Locker. Based on how he DIDN'T suck in his first two games, on the road against the Steelers and Saints, I think it's tough to say we have a much better chance of winning with Wallace than McCoy... so why sit McCoy? Also favoring McCoy: He's in the flow. Unlike Wallace, he's been playing AND practicing these past three weeks. My take: You start McCoy with Wallace as the backup. You keep the leash relatively loose on McCoy... but if he falls apart, you pull him for Wallace and keep the Eagles on speed dial unless we somehow end up drafting ahead of the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.