bills44 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 this Thursday. Will Fewell sit back and let him get comfortable on 11/17? http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3680927 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Nice. Good luck to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 A+ job by Cleveland for passing up on the picks offered for Anderson this past offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 A+ job by Cleveland for passing up on the picks offered for Anderson this past offseason. So you're ready to annoint Quinn the savior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripnRip Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 So you're ready to annoint Quinn the savior? No, but I think it's time everyone annoints DA as a horrible version of Brett Favre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 So you're ready to annoint Quinn the savior? Where do you even come up with a question like that based on his comment? In fact, he's nuts-on accurate. If the Browns weren't fully committed to Anderson for this entire year and beyond, then they should have taken their lumps and gotten some picks for him during this past offseason when there was high value, which they could have done very easily (though I don't profess to know how high a pick they could have gotten). As it stands now, they get no picks for him, they eat his new salary, and they're turning the reigns over to the new guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Nice. Good luck to him. id rather face quinn than anderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Where do you even come up with a question like that based on his comment? In fact, he's nuts-on accurate. If the Browns weren't fully committed to Anderson for this entire year and beyond, then they should have taken their lumps and gotten some picks for him during this past offseason when there was high value, which they could have done very easily (though I don't profess to know how high a pick they could have gotten). As it stands now, they get no picks for him, they eat his new salary, and they're turning the reigns over to the new guy. Well, You're both nuts-on-nuts. let's see. Anderson played very well last year. Well enough for the Browns to want him playing over Quinn. 29 touchdowns is pretty good. Obviously they wanted to keep him. Quinn hasn't started a game. You think it would have been smart for the Browns (without the benefit of hindsight or a crystal ball) to trade Anderson and hand Quinn the starting job? Which move would have looked riskier for them in the off-season? Staying with Anderson and paying him or giving Quinn the job with no experience? I think they made the obvious choice given what they knew then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Making the switch to a rookie QB in short week and making him make his regular-season debut in a Thursday night national broadcast is pretty ballsy. Or stupid. I haven't decided which. The move is long overdue, but the timing is odd. It's almost like Crennel is setting him up to fail so he can justify his decision to stick with Anderson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Well, You're both nuts-on-nuts. let's see. Anderson played very well last year. Well enough for the Browns to want him playing over Quinn. 29 touchdowns is pretty good. Obviously they wanted to keep him. Quinn hasn't started a game. You think it would have been smart for the Browns (without the benefit of hindsight or a crystal ball) to trade Anderson and hand Quinn the starting job? Which move would have looked riskier for them in the off-season? Staying with Anderson and paying him or giving Quinn the job with no experience? I think they made the obvious choice given what they knew then. No. when picks are on the table for either QB, its tough to keep both QBs that are both your "future." The Browns could have gotten some really good picks for either Quinn or Anderson in the offseason. Instead, they pay Anderson a ton (8 mil per year for 3 years), and now he's on the bench. Quinn wasn't drafted in the 1st round to sit the bench and be a career backup. They should have moved 1 of the 2 QBs when they had the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 No. when picks are on the table for either QB, its tough to keep both QBs that are both your "future." The Browns could have gotten some really good picks for either Quinn or Anderson in the offseason. Instead, they pay Anderson a ton (8 mil per year for 3 years), and now he's on the bench. Quinn wasn't drafted in the 1st round to sit the bench and be a career backup. They should have moved 1 of the 2 QBs when they had the chance. Outside of Cleveland and Buffalo, did any teams keep two crappy QBs on their roster this offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Well, You're both nuts-on-nuts. let's see. Anderson played very well last year. Well enough for the Browns to want him playing over Quinn. 29 touchdowns is pretty good. Obviously they wanted to keep him. Quinn hasn't started a game. You think it would have been smart for the Browns (without the benefit of hindsight or a crystal ball) to trade Anderson and hand Quinn the starting job? Which move would have looked riskier for them in the off-season? Staying with Anderson and paying him or giving Quinn the job with no experience? I think they made the obvious choice given what they knew then. They were in a tough spot. But 5 of Anderson's tds were in a week 2, 51 - 45 shoot-out with CIN. In a must-win game in week #16 at CIN, he choked, tossing 4 ints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyF Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Making the switch to a rookie QB in short week and making him make his regular-season debut in a Thursday night national broadcast is pretty ballsy. Or stupid. I haven't decided which. The move is long overdue, but the timing is odd. It's almost like Crennel is setting him up to fail so he can justify his decision to stick with Anderson. Actually it was very smart....... Denver has one of the worst D's in the league. Allow Anderson to QB and a good game and Quinn is anchored to the bench again. This is the perfect place to start Quinn and I expect he'll look good like everyone does against Denver (except Russell). Much like everyone completing 70% vs. Buffalo and San Diego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Man, was I rooting for this to happen. But now, w/ the Bills' (lack of a) pass rush, I'm not so sure how it would benefit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Derek Anderson, I heard of him! Git r Done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 No. when picks are on the table for either QB, its tough to keep both QBs that are both your "future." The Browns could have gotten some really good picks for either Quinn or Anderson in the offseason. Instead, they pay Anderson a ton (8 mil per year for 3 years), and now he's on the bench. Quinn wasn't drafted in the 1st round to sit the bench and be a career backup. They should have moved 1 of the 2 QBs when they had the chance. Hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 They were in a tough spot. But 5 of Anderson's tds were in a week 2, 51 - 45 shoot-out with CIN. In a must-win game in week #16 at CIN, he choked, tossing 4 ints. If we judged our very own Trent Edwards on 2 games, he'd be on the bench too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 If we judged our very own Trent Edwards on 2 games, he'd be on the bench too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hindsight. No, it isnt hindsight. I said all offseason that the Browns should deal anderson while his value was high. Break down his numbers from last year. In his first 10 games, he tossed 20 TDs and 9 INTs. In the final 6, Only 9 TDs and 10 INTs. He was regerssing by the end of the season. Also, any QB that offers up 19 picks in a season (when your team is supposed to be a wildcard team) should toss up red flags. If Brady Quinn was a 3rd or 4th round pick, sure keep anderson and hope Quinn pans out. But Quinn was a 1st rounder, whom they traded up to take. Those guys simply dont sit the bench as career backups. Quinn was going to start sooner or later. With Anderson's value high, and both of them being young, the front office needed to decide on one or the other and get the max value for the other. That time has come and gone. Now, the brownies are stuck with an unmovable anderson (because of his salary) as an $8 million per season backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hindsight. You say "hindsight," but again you're missing the point. At the time they negotiated a new deal for Anderson, the obvious front office question was "Do we trade Anderson now while his value is high, or do we give Anderson $8M/year. And if we choose the latter, are we ready to commit the next few years exclusively to him, for better or worse? And if we do, what do we do with Quinn?" Unfortunately, that's not what they did. They banked on the fact that Anderson would make another run this year, meaning they could probably unload Quinn and his $7.5M/year contract this next offseason. They handled the situation wrong, and you didn't need to rely on hindsight to see that coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts