Colt should start the rest of the season

[CantonLegend]

ahh you must have missed the last few years of browns football

in 2008 when brady quinn got his first real taste of starting in the NFL, the gameplan was the exact same

 

you saw completion percentages like 65%.....66% etc

 

the difference was that when they tried to open up the offense, quinn couldnt handle it.......in fact the results were awful......when any browns QB is asked to throw the ball 30 times a game you are going to see a significant increase in mistakes and incompletions

 

not to mention the running game wasnt nearly as successful as it is this year which is actually what the browns offense is built around and why they are finding success

[Harry Buffalo]

by starting him and knowing you are not making the playoffs, all you are doing is riskin injuries. what is the point of goin back to a QB that is only going to be here for a few years? the point is that both seneca and jake can both start for their duration here and let colt learn all the little things that he can by watchin them

 

You missed my point about needing to know if he is good know with a huge surplus of potential franchise QB's that are going to be in this up and coming draft. If it turns out he is not the answer we might get a QB draft like we had this year, which so far (besides Bradford and so far Colt) has not been good. Also if someone is going to get injured, he is going to get injured. Whether it is during a rookie season or a 10th year season. It happens and sitting him isn't going to protect him from injury next year or the year after. It's like saying that since you are not going to the playoffs you shouldn't play your starters the rest of the year to protect them from injury. The thought process is so stupid.

 

aaron rodgers is a great example of this.....yea he holds the ball a little longer than he should, but that is from watching favre throw so many picks. he doesnt want to make those mistakes

 

Aaron Rodgers is one of the only good examples of this. If a QB is going to be good, he is going to be good. PERIOD. Depending on when he plays doesn't matter. He is going to have that wierd looking first year and then he is going to bloom, whether if that is as a rookie with no vet to learn from, or a guy who sat behind one for 5 years.

 

colt will learn the little things like that and it will make him that much better. this isnt an experiment......colt is starting out of necessity only

He is learning them right now as he plays and as Delhomme coaches him from the side lines. He will get better playing and having Delhomme point out his mistakes than have Delhomme in and come back to the side line and tell him not to throw that int.

 

how is this not like the last 20 times the browns have done this? how are you guys not wanting to push colt in to the starting lineup this soon? thats exactly what this thread is about.....you guys wanting to start an inexperienced rookie on a team with no WRs and a struggling right side of the offensive line

 

1:The right side has been solid since after the injuries. What games have you been watching. 2: Yes we don't have good WR's, but Colt is still finding ways to complete passes to them. You get good WR's with the same amount of throws and completions and 175 passing yards turns into 250 passing yards and two touchdowns.

 

its a classic browns mistake if they do it again

 

im not saying colt is the best QB on the team.....in fact i said several times that i dont think he is. i am saying that he should be considered to be the future and that he should learn behind 2 very solid vets and a president in mike holmgren and a head coach in eric mangini that know exactly what they are doing

 

He is learning RIGHT NOW FROM THOSE SAME PEOPLE WHILE PERFORMING WELL!!! By not playing him to hinder his progress and and you leave a question mark that we are forced to stick with. We will not know if we need to draft anyone. And once again we sat Quinn, we didn't know what he could do, after two years we tried to stick with him and he shit to bed. Why do that again.

 

[Harry Buffalo]

Seriously your entire argument is both he is the future and we should hide him because either A: he is going to get injured, or B: they will let him loose and he will suck. Well this is a freakin physical game so if he is going to get injured from a hit, it isn't going to be any different than a hit he will take in year 2,3,4,5...... retirement. So you are saying B which is what we want to find out. We want to know if he is the answer or if he is just hype. We want to know this so we can make a pick for a potential franchise QB if we need one.

[CantonLegend]

You missed my point about needing to know if he is good know with a huge surplus of potential franchise QB's that are going to be in this up and coming draft. If it turns out he is not the answer we might get a QB draft like we had this year, which so far (besides Bradford and so far Colt) has not been good. Also if someone is going to get injured, he is going to get injured. Whether it is during a rookie season or a 10th year season. It happens and sitting him isn't going to protect him from injury next year or the year after. It's like saying that since you are not going to the playoffs you shouldn't play your starters the rest of the year to protect them from injury. The thought process is so stupid.

 

no i didnt miss that point..i just dont think the browns need to waste anymore picks on QBs.....they dont have success drafting QBs and if colt isnt the answer, why not look for someone in free agency. and anybody can get hurt at any time....but you are risking an injury to the future QB in a meaningless season. that is stupid to risk that when there is absolutely no reason to. the browns have other options and should excercise those options until they have proven they arent worthy of starting

 

Aaron Rodgers is one of the only good examples of this. If a QB is going to be good, he is going to be good. PERIOD. Depending on when he plays doesn't matter. He is going to have that wierd looking first year and then he is going to bloom, whether if that is as a rookie with no vet to learn from, or a guy who sat behind one for 5 years.

 

actually i can name several QBs that have done this.......matt schaub, drew brees, chad henne, even jake delhomme......there are a lot of examples and if i actually wanted to think about it, i could probably come up with a ton more

 

1:The right side has been solid since after the injuries. What games have you been watching. 2: Yes we don't have good WR's, but Colt is still finding ways to complete passes to them. You get good WR's with the same amount of throws and completions and 175 passing yards turns into 250 passing yards and two touchdowns.

 

i love this argument.....ive been watching the same ones you have......or the games that you havent been watching

 

He is learning RIGHT NOW FROM THOSE SAME PEOPLE WHILE PERFORMING WELL!!! By not playing him to hinder his progress and and you leave a question mark that we are forced to stick with. We will not know if we need to draft anyone. And once again we sat Quinn, we didn't know what he could do, after two years we tried to stick with him and he shit to bed. Why do that again.

 

that is the biggest issue......colt is not doing anything stellar....in fact all he is doin is managing the games. you guys are confusing that with having a starting caliber QB. colt is doing what a backup does in the absence of the starters. the gameplan for colt is exactly what you would see from other teams around the league when their starter goes out and they have a solid running game to lean on.

 

you arent hindering him by letting him sit. how could you possibly be hindering him by letting him watch jake and seneca? he can learn without making the mistakes and without getting hurt......its a win win

 

 

[Harry Buffalo]

Once against if he is going to get hurt it is going to happen wether it be this year next year, or when ever. When was the last time a GOOD starting quarterback was let go in free agency. The only way to get a QB is in the draft and if we need to get one this year is the best year to do it. My arguement was also that it doesn't matter when a QB starts, if they are good they will be good, and if they are not then they are not. If Rodgers, Delhomme, Brees were put in their rookie season they wouldn't be any worse now because of that.

 

Your argument is, don't get him injured during a lost season (you don't sit starters because you are not going to make the playoff!) and that sitting him will make him better, when it won't. If anything giving him more playing time will make him better and at the very worse case scenario, we know that we need to draft a QB.

[CantonLegend]

Once against if he is going to get hurt it is going to happen wether it be this year next year, or when ever. When was the last time a GOOD starting quarterback was let go in free agency. The only way to get a QB is in the draft and if we need to get one this year is the best year to do it. My arguement was also that it doesn't matter when a QB starts, if they are good they will be good, and if they are not then they are not. If Rodgers, Delhomme, Brees were put in their rookie season they wouldn't be any worse now because of that.

 

Your argument is, don't get him injured during a lost season (you don't sit starters because you are not going to make the playoff!) and that sitting him will make him better, when it won't. If anything giving him more playing time will make him better and at the very worse case scenario, we know that we need to draft a QB.

he may get hurt next year or the year after that or the year after that.....he may finish this season without getting hurt at all

 

thats all hypothetical

 

and if they are goin to be good they are good? wtf does that even mean? ryan fitzpatrick sucked up until this season.....so even tho he sucked early on he was going to be good so hes good? thats one of the most idiotic things ive ever heard

 

how can you prove that any of those QBs would be the QBs they are today if they would've started their rookie seasons? you cant.....its hypothetical once again

 

and there are lots of different ways to get a QB.....the draft and free agency are only 2

 

you can also trade for a QB which is what teams have been doing lately. matt cassel, schaub, mcnabb, etc

 

the browns are very good at trading for draft picks and mangini is known for trades. he has been very successful with those trades not only in cleveland but also in new york and it wouldnt be hard for him and his team to find a QB that is looking for a new team

 

also....jake delhomme is a proven QB. seneca is one of the better backups in the league and fits the offense perfectly. if colt isnt the answer, re-sign either or both of those guys

[tshirtfan]

he may get hurt next year or the year after that or the year after that.....he may finish this season without getting hurt at all

 

thats all hypothetical

 

and if they are goin to be good they are good? wtf does that even mean? ryan fitzpatrick sucked up until this season.....so even tho he sucked early on he was going to be good so hes good? thats one of the most idiotic things ive ever heard

 

how can you prove that any of those QBs would be the QBs they are today if they would've started their rookie seasons? you cant.....its hypothetical once again

 

and there are lots of different ways to get a QB.....the draft and free agency are only 2

 

you can also trade for a QB which is what teams have been doing lately. matt cassel, schaub, mcnabb, etc

 

the browns are very good at trading for draft picks and mangini is known for trades. he has been very successful with those trades not only in cleveland but also in new york and it wouldnt be hard for him and his team to find a QB that is looking for a new team

 

also....jake delhomme is a proven QB. seneca is one of the better backups in the league and fits the offense perfectly. if colt isnt the answer, re-sign either or both of those guys

 

I don't understand what you're saying; how does any of that have to do with your argument that Delhomme or Wallace should be starting? If it's so easy to get QBs, I'd just as soon play the youngin' with the upside. He's played against better defenses than the other two QBs, and turnovers and penalties are way down, completion percent is way up, third down conversion is up, and morale in general is up.

 

It seems like you respond to every rebuttal by veering off into a new direction.

[CantonLegend]

I don't understand what you're saying; how does any of that have to do with your argument that Delhomme or Wallace should be starting? If it's so easy to get QBs, I'd just as soon play the youngin' with the upside. He's played against better defenses than the other two QBs, and turnovers and penalties are way down, completion percent is way up, third down conversion is up, and morale in general is up.

 

It seems like you respond to every rebuttal by veering off into a new direction.

there are a lot of different people in this thread responding to my posts with different comments. im trying to respond to everyone and sometimes the arguments seem off topic but they are all in response to something someone has said in this thread

 

colt has played against 1 good defense. the steelers. the saints defense is rated well, but being a saints fan i can tell you that ratings dont tell you the whole story

 

colt lost to the only team with a good defense. and it was because they stopped the run

 

morale is up because you have your first multiple game win streak of the season. there is a lot of good coming out of both of those games considering the talent level of both teams.

 

having said that, colt didnt really do anything better than jake or seneca could have done. he really hasnt done a whole lot other than play like a backup and make a few plays here and there

 

from the beginning my argument has centered around my opinion that jake and seneca are better and should continue to start when they are healthy. colt just isnt as good IMO and 2 TEAM wins dont make HIM a starting QB yet

[Carolina Brownie]

Holy crap, this thread blew up!

[sisky fringo]

It looks to me that he is ready to win games. He beat the defending SB Champs and he beat the team with the best record in football. I guess if you consider the Saints and the Pats "not much" then perhaps he hasn't done much. But he "lead" them the way any QB leads a team. Some win by throwing for 450 yards. Others win by doing all the right things at the right time. So far, that is what McCoy has done.

i disagree, Gipper, and my reasoning is not splitting hairs either. contrary to what you wrote, he did not "beat" those teams the way Tom Brady and Peyton Manning beat teams. sure, he checked out of some plays into better ones and took stellar care of the football but let's be real: he started at QB against the defending SB champs and the team won. he started at QB against the team with the best record in football and again, the Browns won. let's call it like it is.

 

re: the game, loved what Colt showed us again.

 

re: starting the rest of the season, i feel when it's time to commit to Colt, we commit to Colt all the way. the team is playing awesome around him and if the Coaches, FO, etc feel the rookie gives the Browns the best chance to win, i'm behind it all the way. and that means through the good and the bad.

 

some on here have posted that they feel after the other 2 QBs return from injury Colt should be the guy for the rest of the season...unless he starts playing poorly, making mistakes, or however you want to word it. then and only then you bench him, if i understand them correctly. well that's where i differ. imo don't make him "the guy" until you're sure, and you stick with him through it all, coaching him up the whole way.

 

that's where i'm coming from when i cast my JD and SW votes fwiw.

[sisky fringo]

I do remember a young man in bernie kosar who wasn't suppose to play his rookie year until I think gary danielson got hurt.

 

How did that work out?

it was really damn entertaining...but he never got CLE a Lombardi.

 

just saying.

 

and i'm about as big a Kosar fan as they come.

[sisky fringo]

In my opinion its people such as yourself that jump all over the topic of skin color when its brought up that allows racism to even continue being an issue in this country. Just let it go man

yikes! i'm with Calfox on this, it totally was unnecessary.

 

and in my opinion people that segregate and see in color constantly need called out.

 

can't WAIT til we all get blurred and populated by simple shades and pigments.

[sisky fringo]

You have to go with the hot hand. McCoy is still learning, and while he is managing the game well, he is still the hot hand, and you have to stick with it! It can only help him, and keep the momentum going, as well as continuing to gain confidence week after week.

the team is the hot hand, imo.

 

iirc, seneca was the QB hot hand vs atlanta after beating the bengals the week before. so, how is that not hypocrytical?

[sisky fringo]

Because we are not making the playoffs is the reason to start him. Our season is basically over, so what is the point of going back to a QB that is only supposed to be here fora year or two or to a QB that was supposed to be a back up until he retires in 5-7 years. Since the season is just about guaranteed to end with out a playoff birth, and with a draft coming up heavy with potential franchise QB's, we need to know how good Colt is NOW. You can not guarantee that he is going to be good off of 3 games no matter how good the teams were and no matter how impressive the performance was. The rest of the season is where we will be able to judge just how good Colt is. We can't just sit back and go "the experiment is over time to put back in the old guys and hope we didn't make a mistake". This isn't like the past years where we pushed people into soon. Back then we did it because we wanted to win NOW, this year we are doing it so we can tell if we need to sell the car and pick up a newer model. We can not sit around anymore and pray and hope. We did that with Quinn and look where it got us. We NEED to know if Colt is the future starter, future back up, or future waiver wire pick up for another team. So please stop saying he is the best, the future, and continue to say how we need to sit him.

you say we're just about guaranteed not to make the playoffs?!? wow! you know, i liked quite a few of your posts until this one.

 

EDIT: i just read how stupid you think it is to protect your starters when games are meaningless because injuries can happen whenever. so i guess teams should play their franchise QBs every snap all preseason long, or during end of the season games when you're already a lock for the playoffs, like the Colts did when they lost with their backups and killed our playoff hopes. you might think it's stupid, and guys can get hurt whenever, but you're absolutely dense if you don't think limiting risk to the guys that get it done is a good idea. in fact it's not only a good idea, it's what teams do.

 

so our season is over after 8 games with 3 wins? when we've been in every game, and all those losses against winning teams?

 

what if we win the next 4 straight, are our playoff hopes still over then?

 

it's a long season, still plenty of time to turn it around. we have only played our division once each for heaven's sake. not even close to being time to panic.

 

H-I-B, you also say seneca still might have 5-7 years left in him (your words). the team was just starting to really gel vs the Bengals, as was SW in the new offensive system. they had a nice lead in the next game vs ATL and all signs pointed to Wallace leading the Browns to a win when he unfortunately left the game due to injury. not just managing the game, but leading the team to victory with a sophisticated gameplan.

 

after 8 (9?) years of solid sustainability in the NFL, 2-3 games in CLE have shown it's now overwhelmingly clear we should totally give up on the guy as a viable starter and pass him by for our rookie. do i have that right?

 

you want to reestablish the QB depth chart after 3 games the coaches game-planned around a rookie in order to know whether or not they should draft a QB in April. do i have that right?

 

if that's your entire reason for playing Colt i can't say i can agree at all. let's leave the drafting up to the one's qualified to do so and just win some effin games, no matter who's at QB.

 

you cited how previous Browns teams have been forced to start rookies, like Frye, too early. the difference between previous Browns teams and now is that THIS team was specifically built so the rookie doesn't have to be rushed into starting, unless injury forced of course. so why continue the same trend?

 

we as fans always love to put the cart before the horse in CLE. Colt's played awesome, and against some great opponents, but i still think it's paramount to let the kid season a bit more.

 

or, we could blow off the season to see if he's our franchise QB and risk getting him hurt.

i bet season ticket holders would love that one.

 

if the season's a wash by week 12, i'm all about enduring his growing pains then. but certainly not now just to see if he's our future guy.

 

the reason teams like the Steelers and the Colts are consistent winners year after year is because their depth chart is like shark teeth. one falls out, there's another that's been growing behind it ready to step up to fill the hole. this concept has been proven to work again and again, but it requires patience and emotionless decision-making, something the previous fan-influenced CLE coaching staffs have lacked, hopefully up until now.

 

or, maybe Colt actually gives us the best chance to win. is it possible?

 

it's drama like this that makes the NFL the original and very best reality tv on the planet.

[Bodogjoe]

i was wrong that colt should start if he truely is the best QB on the team?....am i wrong about that too?

 

the browns were in every game this season against some tough competition......except colts first start against the pittsburgh steelers which is the browns biggest rival......the browns are a good team that has played the toughest schedule in the league so far this season.....its unfortunate because the record is not indicative of how good they are

 

the browns also traded jerome harrison for mike bell.....maybe mike bell is the reason they have won so many games. maybe stuckey and robiskie playing more is the reason. maybe starting the backup RT due to injury is the reason. maybe playing rubin over rogers was the reason for so much success

 

maybe its not?

 

there are a lot of things that have changed for the browns this season and pointing to colt as the reason is ignoring the big picture. fwiw the browns have only won 3 games so far this season and you cant honestly say that colt is the reason 2 of those wins

 

He might not be the sole reason for the wins. But I tell you what he has done FAR FAR better then Jake or Seneca - Cut down on penaltys and turnovers - The little things are what keeps you from getting the edge at the end of a game - and so far, Colt has done well. He just seems to command the offense better thus far. Why the hell would you bench him with things going well with him. I guess the idea of a 60yr old QB or a career 3rd string QB is just to tantilizing....

[CantonLegend]

i disagree, Gipper, and my reasoning and is not splitting hairs either. contrary to what you wrote, imo he started at QB against the defending SB champs and the team won. he started at QB against the team with the best record on football and again, the Browns won. let's call it like it is.

 

re: the game, loved what Colt showed us again.

 

re: starting the rest of the season, i feel when it's time to commit to Colt, we commit to Colt all the way. the team is playing awesome around him and if the Coaches, FO, etc feel the rookie gives the Browns the best chance to win, i'm behind it all the way. and that means through the good and the bad.

 

some on here have posted that they feel after the other 2 QBs return from injury Colt should be the guy for the rest of the season...unless he starts playing poorly, making mistakes, or however you want to word it. then and only then you bench him, if i understand them correctly. well that's where i differ. imo don't make him "the guy" until you're sure, and you stick with him through it all, coaching him up the whole way.

 

that's where i'm coming from when i cast my JD and SW votes fwiw.

 

agreed.....you dont just start him until he screws up then bench him

 

thats not the continuity the browns need. they need a guy who can lead them to victory when the game is on the line and colt isnt ready for that IMO. seneca and jake are better prepared for those situations and if the gameplan remains the same with either of them at QB then the browns should continue to win games

 

but "riding the hot hand" is something you do with a running back or WR. you dont do that with a QB. they are too important to an offense and if and when jake and seneca get back, they should start on the simple basis that they are better and more experienced as of now

[CantonLegend]

He might not be the sole reason for the wins. But I tell you what he has done FAR FAR better then Jake or Seneca - Cut down on penaltys and turnovers - The little things are what keeps you from getting the edge at the end of a game - and so far, Colt has done well. He just seems to command the offense better thus far. Why the hell would you bench him with things going well with him. I guess the idea of a 60yr old QB or a career 3rd string QB is just to tantilizing....

he hasnt done far far better than jake or seneca......he has 1 TD and 2 INTs in 3 games

 

he has only thrown for 530 yards

 

the only thing he has done is started when the browns won the game

 

jake also has 1 INT but has played against superior defenses and has had to throw the ball more in his games

 

seneca has nearly 700 yards passing with 4 TDs and 2 INTs

 

if you ask me who the best QB is by looking at those numbers, id say seneca by a landslide

 

he isnt a career 3rd stringer.....hes backed up one of the most consistant QBs in the NFL for the past several years and come in and performed well when hasselback goes down

[sisky fringo]

He might not be the sole reason for the wins. But I tell you what he has done FAR FAR better then Jake or Seneca - Cut down on penaltys and turnovers - The little things are what keeps you from getting the edge at the end of a game - and so far, Colt has done well. He just seems to command the offense better thus far. Why the hell would you bench him with things going well with him. I guess the idea of a 60yr old QB or a career 3rd string QB is just to tantilizing....

i like how you exaggerate Jake's age and Seneca's prior second string status to help illustrate your point.

[Colt45Forever]

CL, you are perhaps one of the dumbest people I have ever seen on a sports message board.

 

Long and short, Colt is 2-1 as a starter. Seneca and Jake were a combined 1-4. End of story.

 

Colt makes amazing plays with his feet. He extends drives.

[Colt45Forever]

he hasnt done far far better than jake or seneca......he has 1 TD and 2 INTs in 3 games

 

he has only thrown for 530 yards

 

the only thing he has done is started when the browns won the game

 

jake also has 1 INT but has played against superior defenses and has had to throw the ball more in his games

 

seneca has nearly 700 yards passing with 4 TDs and 2 INTs

 

if you ask me who the best QB is by looking at those numbers, id say seneca by a landslide

 

he isnt a career 3rd stringer.....hes backed up one of the most consistant QBs in the NFL for the past several years and come in and performed well when hasselback goes down

 

Jake played against superior defenses? Better than the Steelers? Better than the Patriots?

[beefjerky]

he hasnt done far far better than jake or seneca......he has 1 TD and 2 INTs in 3 games

 

he has only thrown for 530 yards

 

the only thing he has done is started when the browns won the game

 

jake also has 1 INT but has played against superior defenses and has had to throw the ball more in his games

 

seneca has nearly 700 yards passing with 4 TDs and 2 INTs

 

if you ask me who the best QB is by looking at those numbers, id say seneca by a landslide

 

he isnt a career 3rd stringer.....hes backed up one of the most consistant QBs in the NFL for the past several years and come in and performed well when hasselback goes down

The flaw with your stats is that you're going off of total numbers instead of efficiency, Colt is more efficient than both Delhomme and Senaca. You can just tell from watching Colt that he makes less mistakes too.

 

I would love to keep Senaca as a backup, but if he's not happy with that, give him kind regards and trade him to the Cowboys, Cardinals, Panthers, anyone who needs a QB(for the Cowboys it's only until Romo gets healthy). I think he can succeed as a solid average QB, hard to believe Seattle favored Whitehurst over Senaca.

[CantonLegend]

Jake played against superior defenses? Better than the Steelers? Better than the Patriots?

 

howd colt do against the steelers there champ?

 

the pats defense is bottom 3rd in the league

 

the falcons and buccs have 2 of the better pass defenses in the league

[CantonLegend]

CL, you are perhaps one of the dumbest people I have ever seen on a sports message board.

 

Long and short, Colt is 2-1 as a starter. Seneca and Jake were a combined 1-4. End of story.

 

Colt makes amazing plays with his feet. He extends drives.

 

and joe thomas is the best tackle in the league.....whats his overall career record? i bet its pretty terrible

 

you are crediting colt for a team win a discrediting jake and seneca for team losses......thats cool tho

 

it shows that there are people dumber than me

[Bodogjoe]

he hasnt done far far better than jake or seneca......he has 1 TD and 2 INTs in 3 games

 

he has only thrown for 530 yards

 

the only thing he has done is started when the browns won the game

 

jake also has 1 INT but has played against superior defenses and has had to throw the ball more in his games

 

seneca has nearly 700 yards passing with 4 TDs and 2 INTs

 

if you ask me who the best QB is by looking at those numbers, id say seneca by a landslide

 

he isnt a career 3rd stringer.....hes backed up one of the most consistant QBs in the NFL for the past several years and come in and performed well when hasselback goes down

 

You cannot pick a QB based on the numbers. You have to take into account the intangibles. Like knowing when to throw the ball away rather then throwing into triple coverage. He has not commited big turnover or penaltys WHEN IT COUNTS. So he HAS done a far better job. Look at people like Brett Favre. He can throw for 500 yards, but lose the game throwing costly int's when it counts. Oh, and the most important stat - WINS.

 

And like I said before, you cant determine if he is going to start the rest of the season. Gotta go game to game.

[CantonLegend]

The flaw with your stats is that you're going off of total numbers instead of efficiency, Colt is more efficient than both Delhomme and Senaca. You can just tell from watching Colt that he makes less mistakes too.

 

colt hasnt made less mistakes than seneca.....he hasnt been more successful than seneca either

 

and when you are looking at the stats at the end of the game, you can say colt has been more efficient......but when you turn on the games you pickup on little things like the gameplan that is based around short passes and high percentage passes

 

colt doesnt throw the ball deep very much, and when he does its usually incomplete.....what colt does is throw the ball short......he completes 4 yard passes once or twice every series and the occassional 3rd down pass to keep drives alive

[CantonLegend]

You cannot pick a QB based on the numbers. You have to take into account the intangibles. Like knowing when to throw the ball away rather then throwing into triple coverage. He has not commited big turnover or penaltys WHEN IT COUNTS. So he HAS done a far better job. Look at people like Brett Favre. He can throw for 500 yards, but lose the game throwing costly int's when it counts. Oh, and the most important stat - WINS.

 

you are going to throw the numbers out? then what are you going to judge colt on? because if you are looking at the intangibles like arm strength, decision making, and experience then you have to go with the other 2

 

penalties on a QB? when? what penalties did jake or seneca get?

 

and the only stat that matters is wins.......colt has 2 wins as a starter.....the browns are a team tho. you can say that colt won those games, but then id know for sure that you werent watching. you can say that colt has played better, but then id really know you werent watching.

 

the browns won 2 games as a team when colt was the starter......THEY DIDNT WIN BECAUSE OF COLT MCCOY

 

im not sure i can say it any clearer than that

[Bodogjoe]

you are going to throw the numbers out? then what are you going to judge colt on? because if you are looking at the intangibles like arm strength, decision making, and experience then you have to go with the other 2

 

penalties on a QB? when? what penalties did jake or seneca get?

 

and the only stat that matters is wins.......colt has 2 wins as a starter.....the browns are a team tho. you can say that colt won those games, but then id know for sure that you werent watching. you can say that colt has played better, but then id really know you werent watching.

 

the browns won 2 games as a team when colt was the starter......THEY DIDNT WIN BECAUSE OF COLT MCCOY

 

im not sure i can say it any clearer than that

 

Wow, you really dont know anything about football. I didnt say throw the numbers out - But this isnt fantasy football. "All he has had is two wins in his first three games" Please stick to fantasy football, you obviously have completely missed the point of real football.

[sisky fringo]

Jake played against superior defenses? Better than the Steelers? Better than the Patriots?

Patriots defense was ranked 28th going into the game, and the Browns D neutralized their 29.3 scoring average.

 

some Colt homerism combined with an innate Brownie desire to play with the new shiny toy=CL having absolutely no chance in this thread, regardless of having some salient points. but that's just like, my opinion, man.

[CantonLegend]

Wow, you really dont know anything about football. I didnt say throw the numbers out - But this isnt fantasy football. "All he has had is two wins in his first three games" Please stick to fantasy football, you obviously have completely missed the point of real football.

instead of trying to prove that your dick is bigger than mine.....why dont you explain to me why i dont know football or how the browns wins have anything to do with the starting QB?

[Bodogjoe]

Patriots defense was ranked 28th going into the game, and the Browns D neutralized their 29.3 scoring average.

 

some Colt homerism combined with an innate Brownie desire to play with the new shiny toy=CL having absolutely no chance in this thread, regardless of having some salient points. but that's just like, my opinion, man.

 

Its not homerism. I am not saying hes gonna be Joe Montana, or even win the next game. But you have a rookie QB, with alot of pressue on him come into games and do relatively well - while winning . He is maturing and gaining good exp, and has the potential to be a great QB. Also, players will rally around a QB. So you are saying, lets mess with the good chemistry we have had over the last few games and toss in the band-aids we traded for. So please explain the logic on pulling him out.