kshutchins Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Interesting show today. All three of these guys were in agreement that Quinn should be in. They all had different reasons. I was most interested in Rutigliano who cited 1) completion percentage and 2) the inability to "see" the field and sense what's going on around him, as reasons to sit down Anderson. On Daboll, the consensus was that with a Defensive minded head coach, it's typically prudent to bring in an experienced OC. They were very kind to Daboll, calling him smart, but very inexperienced. They agreed that a feel for the game and when to make calls develops only with experience, hence the need for a more mature OC in this particular situation. They commented on the Quarterback sneak on second down with 1 yard to go and made it clear that this wasn't the call made by Daboll. Anderson checked off at the line and called that on his own because he was itching to move the chains. Maybe someone else saw the show and got something else out of it. These are the things that stuck with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I didn't see the show but found a QB sneak on 2nd and 1 very bizarre. That would typically be a down and distance to take a shot downfield wouldn't it? I guess first downs are so hard to come by for us that we have to take them when we have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Thanks, Kathy ! The qb sneak for a first down? I thought it was too far for him to try that, but, the call didn't make sense. DA can't sell a play; he seems to telegraph every throw, every run with how he turns. He couldn't fake out a one ton granite boulder. I admire Sam's input in a huge way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestinFunk Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 No offense KS..but who cares what QB is under center... This is like comparing moldy peaches to spoiled apples...neither is a playmaker but then again we have no playmakers at any other position...so put cribbs at QB...wild cat it out... put quinn at linebacker?...he is as big as AJ hawk. it really doesnt matter and that is what is so sad. i know i am being silly but lets try something new...anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshutchins Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 No offense KS..but who cares what QB is under center... This is like comparing moldy peaches to spoiled apples...neither is a playmaker but then again we have no playmakers at any other position...so put cribbs at QB...wild cat it out... put quinn at linebacker?...he is as big as AJ hawk. it really doesnt matter and that is what is so sad. i know i am being silly but lets try something new...anything! The general opinion was that Quinn's style of play (short passes over the middle) is more in synch with the abilities of the rest of the team and therefore more likely to be successful. Rutigliano was very empahtic that Anderson demonstrates an inability to see the whole field and to sense what is happening around him. This combined with a shockingly bad completion percentage would be sufficient, in his view, to make a change. It was also pointed out that Quinn may have struggled early in the season but he struggled against three very good defenses. I'm just the messenger. I thought it was a well reasoned argument rather than a call for change for change sake as we've heard a lot lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 The general opinion was that Quinn's style of play (short passes over the middle) is more in synch with the abilities of the rest of the team and therefore more likely to be successful. Rutigliano was very empahtic that Anderson demonstrates an inability to see the whole field and to sense what is happening around him. This combined with a shockingly bad completion percentage would be sufficient, in his view, to make a change. It was also pointed out that Quinn may have struggled early in the season but he struggled against three very good defenses. I'm just the messenger. I thought it was a well reasoned argument rather than a call for change for change sake as we've heard a lot lately. It's one thing when us Monday Morning Quarterbacks want to yank DA for the litany of reasons that don't need to be repeated again. It's entirely another thing when guys like Rutigliano and Dieken start saying the same thing. I was fortunate enough to meet Dieken a couple of years back at a Browns Backers banquet, and talk to the guy for about 5 minutes off the record. Doug sees everything from the pressbox, and trust me, he doesn't miss anything. Mangini's just being a stubborn butthead IMHO, and if he somehow thinks he's preserving Quinn's trade value, he's delusional. If Anderson has another horrendous game against the Bears, there's no reason not to start Quinn after the bye week for the rest of the season. He can't possibly do worse than a 40 qb rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegasdogg Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 That would typically be a down and distance to take a shot downfield wouldn't it? I guess first downs are so hard to come by for us that we have to take them when we have a chance. Normally yes, but when you can't sustain drives you take every first down you can get, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bag O'Browns Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I honestly feel the Dabol hiring is equal to the mis-hiring of Maurice Carthon during the Crennel reign. You can see what experience brings in terms of the defense, it might not be statiscally anything to write home about but there are glimpses of a pro defense. Dabol has the makings of solid conservative play caller but this just won't work for our team. We need to be able to be more aggressive and assertive. Why when there are plenty of offensive minds around to be used, that we chose to use a defensive minded guy for OC, i'll never figure out. A case of Mangini perhaps trying to reward loyalty to a friend/coach. Understandable but the Browns should've learned by now that there is no shortcut to experience. On a side comment, is anyone else wondering why the just totally abadoned using Harrison after him showing some glimpses of ability? I know Lewis is healthy but i would think you'd like to find out if Harrison can carry the load. (it could be another case of Mangini saying "this isn't one of my guys and with that i'm only willing to go so far") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshutchins Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I honestly feel the Dabol hiring is equal to the mis-hiring of Maurice Carthon during the Crennel reign. You can see what experience brings in terms of the defense, it might not be statiscally anything to write home about but there are glimpses of a pro defense. Dabol has the makings of solid conservative play caller but this just won't work for our team. We need to be able to be more aggressive and assertive. Why when there are plenty of offensive minds around to be used, that we chose to use a defensive minded guy for OC, i'll never figure out. A case of Mangini perhaps trying to reward loyalty to a friend/coach. Understandable but the Browns should've learned by now that there is no shortcut to experience. On a side comment, is anyone else wondering why the just totally abadoned using Harrison after him showing some glimpses of ability? I know Lewis is healthy but i would think you'd like to find out if Harrison can carry the load. (it could be another case of Mangini saying "this isn't one of my guys and with that i'm only willing to go so far") This reminds me of another comment the guys (Rutigliano, Grossi, Dieken) made. They said something to the effect that if you try a play and it doesn't work, that doesn't mean you abandon the play. This must mean they've seen our coordinator do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.