Well Well Well.. here we have it again. While I AM a colts fan, i live in cleveland, so I follow a lot of Browns football. Fresh off of "Holcomb vs. Couch" to "Put in Charlie"... we have ANOTHER iffy situation.

In case you aren't "uppity" on the situation... Charlie Frye, Derek Anderson, Ken Dorsey, and Brady Quinn are all competing for the Browns starting QB job:

Charlie Frye: Has the most NFL experience, is very mobile, average passer with an average throwing arm.
Derek Anderson: Limited NFL experience, pocket passer, above average passer with a strong arm.
Ken Dorsey: Little NFL experience, mostly from the sidelines, won in college on a great team.
Brady Quinn: No NFL experience, is mobile, seems very accurate and arm-strong.

The heated situation around here, on sports radio and tv, is "Frye or Quinn"? Let me tell you my thought process. Brady Quinn played all 4 years in college, played in an NFL-type system, is not undersized at all, has torn up every defense he has faced in the preseason(4 TD passes compared to 1 from Frye, Anderson and Dorsey COMBINED)... so obviously he is the hot hand. However, Quinn has never faced a 3-4 zone blitz defense like the steelers. Frye has. Frye was in camp on time and has the experience.

About the "holdout" with Quinn. Did I like it? Hell no, i HATE players who have not taken ONE SNAP in the NFL who think they "deserve" more money... YOU HAVN'T DONE SHIT!! YOU HAVE TO EARN YOUR CONTRACT!! I hated the fact that Quinn hid behind his agent, saying "it's on my agent".. Bullshit, if you wanted to get into camp Brady, you could have said "Listen mr. agent, make a deal, get it done, I want to get in and get started".... Quinn hid behind the player norm.

That being said... even WITH that happening, I'm leaning toward a Brady Quinn start this season. We all know Frye isn't the future, and if you ask me people baby quarterbacks way too much these days. Let's take a look at my favorite QB, Peyton Manning. He started his rookie year, his team went 3-13, he threw 24 INT's and 20 TD passes. Was it a bad year? Yea, but it gave him experience. Obviously he built on that, because look at him now. If you ask me, the Browns aren't going to be a "contender" this year, so why not go with the hot hand, which is Quinn, and give him some experience because it seems that within 2 years we WILL be a contender. If Frye and Quinn both looked the same I would be going with Frye, but Quinn has just outplayed all other QB's. Granted he hasn't started, but you still have to put the ball right on the money, and Quinn does that. I say start Brady Quinn. It will electrify the town and the city of cleveland. If he falters, then put Frye in for a few games and bring in Quinn at week 8.

Anybody got a four-sided coin we can flip?

Decka, I was about to go home but have to respond to this!

I say let Charlie play. There's something about Quinn I don't quite trust. I don't think he's ready. Remember he was a holdout and missed several days of training camp. I've read he's picked up the playbook fairly quickly but that's not as good as actually practicing when he should have been at camp. If there's one guy who needs to be at camp from day one, it's the QB.

Also am wondering exactly how much Romeo likes this guy. He calls him "the quarterback". He won't refer to him by name. Apparently Quinn is in Romeo's doghouse. Not a good way to start yr NFL career.

Charlie has earned the right to be the starter. Quinn can be backup until and/or when he proves that is what he really wants.

I am not real happy about him being a Brown. He strikes me as a spoiled troublemaker. Great, that's just what we don't need.

Originally Posted by Rendova
I am not real happy about him being a Brown. He strikes me as a spoiled troublemaker. Great, that's just what we don't need.
Another reason why the Vikes passed him up and took AP! Can't wait to see him in explosive action this year!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...I'm betting a lot that Quinn gets the start. Frye is just way too shaky, Dorsey has little-to-no on-the-field experience, Anderson...well I've never heard of him until this whole QB controversy started; and Crennel's job is on the hot seat this year. Quinn, IMO, has looked the strongest this year, which to me isn't saying much.

Looks to be another long year, but they're headed in the right direction.

I wanted Dorsey to start, and we just cut him. He didn't get a fair shake; he played the best out of everyone in preseason. (minus Quinn who did it against 3rd stringers) He's definitely the smartest one of the bunch and I think he could be, at worst, a great game manager. I like Charlie, Cleveland kid...but he's probably not where the future of the team is.

I definitely think starting Quinn would be best for the long-term success of the franchise. I've never bought the whole "sitting out and learning the system" approach...there's no substitute for actual game time. And, quite frankly, if the rookie QB can't handle playing poorly in his rookie year, is he really a guy you want leading your team in a Super Bowl? No one will ever be able to convince me guys like Carson Palmer wouldn't have been successful in the NFL if they started their rookie seasons, or if Ryan Leaf would have become a star if he sat his first year.

With that said...Romeo shouldn't have started Quinn right away. For starters, he's got his own job to worry about; and starting Charlie gives us the best chance at winning right now. If you start Quinn now, you can't take him out...you have to ride him through thick and thin. Not to mention we're playing against 3 heavy blitzing teams in the first 3 weeks, why get Quinn killed?

Are you all insane? "Whos at quarterback" is the least of Clevlands problems...

Are you all insane? "Whos at quarterback" is the least of Clevlands problems...

:confused: The QB position is the Browns biggest weakness. They have other issues, (mainly run defense) but we need a solid QB to fully utilize our best offensive weapons. (Winslow, Edwards)

Unless you were talking about the actual city...which isn't exactly what we should be discussing in the sports forum.

No.. i was talking about the team... dont know much about the city.... though it cannot be any worse than Baltimore... I am a bengal fan myself. Considering that 3 out of 4 of your division opponents have a strong run game,that is potentally six loses,,, and i dont know if you have noticed by over the past few years 6 losses wont even put you in a playoff hunt in the AFC

and for following a team like Clevland you would think you wouldnt be so touchy about criticism

No.. i was talking about the team... dont know much about the city.... though it cannot be any worse than Baltimore... I am a bengal fan myself. Considering that 3 out of 4 of your division opponents have a strong run game,that is potentally six loses,,, and i dont know if you have noticed by over the past few years 6 losses wont even put you in a playoff hunt in the AFC

and for following a team like Clevland you would think you wouldnt be so touchy about criticism

I did list the run defense as one of our major weaknesses. Our run defense would vastly improve if they weren't on the field the whole game because the offense can't move the chains. I mean, come on here LF...we're starting Charlie Frye week one! That's not a concern? Are you serious? Wanna trade Frye for Palmer?

And yes, being someone who actually watches the Browns week in and week out, I did get slightly annoyed with your "Are you all insane?" retort. I think I know more about the Browns than you do, just like I would expect you to know more about the Bengals than I do.