Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 The difference here is that OUR first rounder has never had the chance to show that he sucks. plus the 6th rounder now makes more money than the 1st rounder, so the tables are turned in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 DA's performance was just plain not that bad. There are guys here drooling over first rounders and saying they should be given time, years if necessary, to improve to DA's level or beyond of play. He's had some poor games, and some very good games, but he's been the most successful QB the Browns have had in years. Apparently if he'd been drafted 140 picks earlier none of this supposed controversy would exist. It's not about DA's draft position, D&S, it's about Quinn's. Like it or not, a first round pick was used to draft Quinn and an organization cannot afford to waste those picks on players who never even see the field. Having a guy bust is one thing, having him never play for no good reason is another entirely. And a first round QB with Quinn's pedigree certainly should not be kept off the field for "just plain not that bad". A first round pick is selected to PLAY, and ideally to improve the team. What you and Lum fail to realize is that DA is NOT improving the team with his "not that bad" play, and therefore he's gotta go. Finally, if it takes Quinn -- or any other player, for that matter -- to "improve" to DA's level of "just plain not that bad", then we will never get past being "just plain not that bad" as a franchise. Not exactly the heights I'm shooting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkandstoopid Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 It's not about DA's draft position, D&S, it's about Quinn's. Like it or not, a first round pick was used to draft Quinn and an organization cannot afford to waste those picks on players who never even see the field. Having a guy bust is one thing, having him never play for no good reason is another entirely. And a first round QB with Quinn's pedigree certainly should not be kept off the field for "just plain not that bad". A first round pick is selected to PLAY, and ideally to improve the team. What you and Lum fail to realize is that DA is NOT improving the team with his "not that bad" play, and therefore he's gotta go. Finally, if it takes Quinn -- or any other player, for that matter -- to "improve" to DA's level of "just plain not that bad", then we will never get past being "just plain not that bad" as a franchise. Not exactly the heights I'm shooting for. That's all nice and dandy, but what if after you get the first rounder in, you realize your 6th rounder is playing at a higher level and you want to win now? Do you play the first rounder because he's a first rounder, or do you play the guy you genuinely think gives you the best chance to win??? So many people here seem to think this scenario hasn't existed... well folks, either it did, or the last coaching and management staff was just screwing with you personally even though their careers would be jeopardized. It'll be interesting to see what the new group does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkandstoopid Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Lumnuts, as much as you are despised here, I have to admit, you usually make me laugh at least once a day. Great argument there corky, DA makes more money, so that must be proof he should be the starter. Tell me again, where is the guy who gave him this contract? Oh yeah, he's in the soup line asking for 2nds.... LOL@ you asshat.... If you'd have actually paid attention: In "Lumnuts/corky" defense (believe me, I've no intention of defending him specifically), he was responding to lemosley01 who said "1st rounders usually GET years because you are PAYING them for years regardless.". Lumbergh obviously made the mistake of not including that quote. You can ignore that and pretend he was responding to air if you want, but it wouldn't be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac12 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You are right, the people that started DA are out of work. Where are the people that drafted BQ? Oh, the same people that are out of work. Does not really matter but I thought I would just point that out when people mention that the people that started DA got fired. Not talking about this board really, but I have seen lots of people responding to news articles and on other sites saying that if the Browns trade BQ then they are done with the Browns. That is not from a only here to support DA guy like Lum but from people that claim to be real Browns fans. It may not be the party line here but it sounds like the vocal minority really are more BQ fans than Browns fans on other sites and news article responses. And I don't get it. What has BQ done to garner such support? He was the 22nd pick in the first round or something close, not the number one pick or even top 10. How does that mean that he should get his chance on the field? It means he is on the team and should compete for his chance on the field. It is a new regime and you should be able to throw away all descriminations that rac had against BQ and have a true open competition. If everybody on this board is right then DA will fold to the pressure and BQ will rise above it all and show the "it" factor. It is not me that has said BQ is a leader and DA is not. If that is true then who cares if it is a open competition for the job, because BQ will win it easily, he rises to the occasion and DA folds. If you talk pedigree, BQ has won all the big games he has played and DA hasn't. I mean look at thier bowl record, look at thier record against USC and look at thier head to head record. I mean it all points to BQs pedigree being unquestioned. I mean forget where the QB is drafted, let them prove it on the field. If DA is traded let the backup challenge BQ for the job and if BQ is traded let the backup challenge DA. It does not matter who we think is better, it really only matters who the coaches think gives them the best shot to compete now and in the future. Niether QB is this regimes guy. The regime that brought in these two QBs are out of work, not just started DA but the ones that drafted BQ also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OconRecon Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You are right, the people that started DA are out of work. Where are the people that drafted BQ? Oh, the same people that are out of work... ...because they didn't start BQ, some would argue, not because they drafted him. And its a QB competition, but no where does it say its going to be fair. Most reports say BQ has the upper hand. But, I agree if BQ can't beat out DA, then tough. Right now, this is all posturing to keep both of our QB's value as high as possible. If it works, then we'll all have helped Mangini's methods with our chatter - which is OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 If you talk pedigree, BQ has won all the big games he has played and DA hasn't. I mean look at thier bowl record, look at thier record against USC and look at thier head to head record. I mean it all points to BQs pedigree being unquestioned. Is this sarcasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Lerner more than savage was the driving force behind drafting Quinn so that argument does not hold water. Also as far as people saying they are done with the Browns if we trade Quinn, I wouldn't give that too much credence, as I have said I don't know how many times in the past that if the Browns do X then I'm done with them. As you can see I'm still here. The people who want Quinn to have a shot are nothing like lumnuts, they are actual fans of the Browns and will stick with the team no matter who the QB is. I agree. Football is supposed to be fun for the fans and players. To hope and be optimistic is the only way to get through the bad times. Football is a multi-billion dollar industry and you have hope that the right decisions are being made by the professionals. QB is just part of the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Is this sarcasm? pot calling the kettle ?black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 The people who want Quinn to have a shot are nothing like lumnuts, they are actual fans of the Browns and will stick with the team no matter who the QB is. No, the people who want Quinn to start are fags who liked watching him play for ND and now want to hump his Fathead poster. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Just feel lucky that Randy Lerner is one of you, because if he wasn't BQ would never have ended up in Cleveland, and he certainly wouldn't have ever started a game last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 No, the people who want Quinn to start are fags who liked watching him play for ND and now want to hump his Fathead poster. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Just feel lucky that Randy Lerner is one of you, because if he wasn't BQ would never have ended up in Cleveland, and he certainly wouldn't have ever started a game last season. I don't watch anything of ND, and I want Quinn to start. There goes that theory. The reason I want Quinn to start is because of several reasons: He's local and has been a Browns fan his whole life, QB'ing the browns is more personal to him than it normally would be. He has outstanding leadership qualities and presence on the field. He deserves his shot. Thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndneighbor Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 If you talk pedigree, BQ has won all the big games he has played and DA hasn't. I mean look at thier bowl record, look at thier record against USC and look at thier head to head record. I mean it all points to BQs pedigree being unquestioned. Questions are appropriate and harmless. Notre dame did not win a single bowl game while Quinn was at Notre Dame. Fact. It is what it is. He was playing on a team. They lost one of those games to another team known as The Beavers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I guess it truly is the barometer of what kind of success a QB will have in the pros. I'll agree with you that the college collapses don't define BQ as an NFL QB. The fact that he rode pine for 2 years and only saw the field when the owner forced the coach to do it is a much better barometer of what kind of success he can have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You better pray the Browns trade Quinn, I don't think you'll be able to handle watching your Derek Bear get his ass handed to him in a camp battle, and you know it will happen as evidence by the fact you won't take my bet. You know a camp battle spells D-O-O-M for derek bear.... There is one way for BQ to start.... Randy Lerner forcing it. If Lerner makes Mangini start BQ then DA will ask for a trade. If Lerner keeps his mouth shut then BQ will ask for a trade. That's how this shit's gonna go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndneighbor Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I love it when people throw that one out there. I guess it truly is the barometer of what kind of success a QB will have in the pros. Just ask Peyton Manning and Rex Grossman......oh wait. Take a deep breath. Peyton and Rex were playing on teams that lost. So what. I didn't suggest bowl game losses spell NFL failure. You're forgetting it's a game played by teams. Remember 11 on offense, 11 on defense. Teams win. Teams lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 That same coach thought CHARLIE FRYE was a better QB than DA. So once again, you're admiting Charlie Frye is a better QB than DA. coach figured it out after about a quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pl4tinum Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I'll agree with you that the college collapses don't define BQ as an NFL QB. The fact that he rode pine for 2 years and only saw the field when the owner forced the coach to do it is a much better barometer of what kind of success he can have. Only if you consider Crennel a "NFL COACH". None of us here do but you, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 But that still doesn't account for how good ole Charlie Frye could beat out your snookems in a head to head training camp battle now does it? You forget. According to RAC, the competition was going to extend into the season. He didn't declare a winner before week 1. The winner was named on Tuesday of week 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 RAC had NO CLUE how to handle quarterbacks, which again proves my point that anything he did says NOTHING about the actual ability of ANY of the quarterbacks who played under him. RAC really didn't need to say anything about the ability of his QB....... the pro bowl voters said it for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I hope it was better than his 5/40 performance of 07.... You must mean the 10/26 game in the Pro Bowl. You know, the game BQ nation tried and tried to label "the worst game in the history of organized football". That was until some guy named Quinn took a shit against the Bill and Texans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemosley01 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You must mean the 10/26 game in the Pro Bowl. You know, the game BQ nation tried and tried to label "the worst game in the history of organized football". That was until some guy named Quinn took a shit against the Bill and Texans. Quinn at his worst with a damaged finger and an even more damaged team, wasn't as bad as Derek-bear's worst. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You must mean the 10/26 game in the Pro Bowl. You know, the game BQ nation tried and tried to label "the worst game in the history of organized football". That was until some guy named Quinn took a shit against the Bill and Texans. I seem to remember DA losing the game in Cincy 07 without a broken finger. Guess he must be really terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I seem to remember DA losing the game in Cincy 07 without a broken finger. Guess he must be really terrible. I seem to remember DA beating the Texans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Oh that's right, derek bear only beats teams that suck out loud and with nothing on the line. Beats them every time. Also beats the Giants, Seahawks, Jaguars. Meanwhile, Quinn just loses to all teams, shitty or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 really? he didn't win any of his 3 starts??? LOL once again, in his effort to be "funny" Lums falls flat again with the lack of basic knowledge he has. and the Seahawks? are you really trotting out the SEAHAWKS as a quality win? c'mon it went to overtime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 and the Seahawks? are you really trotting out the SEAHAWKS as a quality win? yes, a win over the NFC West champ is a quality win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 yes, a win over the NFC West champ is a quality win. NFC West and quality in the same sentence. Now there is an oxymoron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac12 Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Only reason that I mentioned pedigree was because I have seen 1 or 2 posters use that word as a reason to start BQ. Since we can all agree that BQ does not have a NFL pedigree I assumed it was his college pedigree that was being talked about. And I wanted to know what in BQs college career screams leader and winner? Did ND win any big games with BQ at the helm? I can agree that it is not BQs fault that ND did not win, but I just want all the talk to stop about BQs pedigree is all. You can make a case for BQ starting, but not because he is a low first round pick or because he never won a game that mattered at ND. But because DA has proven that he is likely not the answer and that the Browns need to find out if BQ is the answer. I have not seen anything that makes me think BQ is the answer, but I have not seen anything that tells me he is not either. There is not enough of a sample size to know. If both Qbs are on the team this year then you must have a open competiton. Let the new regime see who they think is the better fit for the team. I don't know who that will be, but I would say that I think that BQ will have the upper hand because he can control a game better. I say that not because I like BQ, because in fact I don't, I say it because it is true. DA is a big play QB and tends to make mistakes when taking chances. I think that the new regime is trying to build with defense and ball control. That is much more up BQs alley than DAs. That is why I think BQ will and prolly should start. Because he will manage the game better and may not win allot of games but he will not lose them either. That is just an opinion on the type of Qbs they are. I think DA will win you more games than BQ but I also think that he will lose you more games than BQ also. I am not an expert on the new system but I think for the division that the Browns are in you should build with defense and line play and have a QB that will not make as many mistakes. Let the team win you the games and not the QB. For that reason I think BQ will get the starting nod, but if he doesn't then I think people should realize that just maybe he is not that great. Because after all he will just be in competition with DA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 I'm not sure why anyone wants to, or is willing to debate Lummy...I now have over 800 post and have never had one debate with him. I just don't see the reasoning behind it. You are not going to change his mind. He's NEVER going to say "Oh yeah, you are right". It's like beating your head against a wall. Except in this case the wall is lummy and he enjoys you beating your head up against him. I wouldn't give him the satisfaction of wasting my valuable time on him. I think you guys are mistaken if you think this has anything to do with his love of and respect for Derek Anderson. His whole thing is his deep hatred for Quinn and pissing you guys off. It wouldn't matter if Quinn was in a QB showdown with Ken Dorsey...Lum would be a supporter of Dorsey only because of his hatred of Quinn. Posters like this normally will go away if you simply stop debating him. He thrives on trying to piss you off. It's so obvious. He adds nothing to the board but his constant ( and at times disgusting) degrading of Quinn for nothing more than his hatred of him....whether it's a persona or professional thing with Quinn, it doesn't matter. Lummy is not going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 That's all nice and dandy, but what if after you get the first rounder in, you realize your 6th rounder is playing at a higher level and you want to win now? Do you play the first rounder because he's a first rounder, or do you play the guy you genuinely think gives you the best chance to win??? So many people here seem to think this scenario hasn't existed... well folks, either it did, or the last coaching and management staff was just screwing with you personally even though their careers would be jeopardized. It'll be interesting to see what the new group does. You always play the guys that give the team the best chance to win. That's not the argument here. The whole point of this never-ending conversation is that RAC/Savage MADE THE WRONG DECISION by paying/playing DA, and that decision cost us not only the whole 2008 season but both of them their jobs and the organization millions of dollars. You can make whatever excuses you want to make for DA but the facts that matter are clear: DA failed to win games and failed to lead the team in a positive direction. While he was the starting QB, the Browns looked awful more than they looked good. Period. If he was a quality NFL QB, he would have been part of the solution. He clearly and consistently was part of the problem. And that's what it boils down to now. DA had his chance. He got paid to be the starting QB. He failed. Those that made the decision to make him the starting QB were fired. DA should be fired as well. Which brings us back to: we spent a first-round pick on a top QB. Normally, getting a guy like Quinn is cause for excitement for a franchise and the fan base was rightly excited about the possibilities of a highly-touted QB playing in Cleveland. Many of us would like to see if that excitement based on potential has a basis in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.