I'm really interested to see how Aaron Rodgers plays this season... and I bet Quinn will be interested, too, if he's forced to hold a clipboard for another season. I know Savage has been quick to reference Phil Rivers for Quinn... now he'll be tossing around Aaron Rodgers' name, too.

Interesting thing about Rodgers: He's only 24. In fact, he'll be 24 all of next season, practically. He's about the age of a guy coming off his rookie year, on average. He was 20 when he was drafted.

Is barely playing for three years a detriment, or was it a chance for Rodgers to grow AND grow up? We'll see.

Waiting two years to be a starter is nothing in this league. Romo sat for, what? Three years? Same as Rodgers, or was it more? Rivers waited for two years.

That said, if Quinn doesn't play at all in 2008, it probably means he's headed elsewhere to being his career as a starter... because Anderson held the job with good play.

Yeah, Romo is a five year veteran at 27. He wasn't active his first two years and didn't take a snap his third year.

Rogers is in a sweet situation with good recievers, team and coach. He will step in and be very good. I picked him up at the end of the year on my keeper fantasy league just because i thought this could happen.

I don't know. It's going to be tough to follow a legend.

I think my Packer friends are already at the bar.

I don't think it's a bad thing for Quinn to sit for another year -- PROVIDED THAT DA is winning meaningful games for us.

That being said, the scenario I would like to avoid is making a decision on Quinn v. DA without ever seeing Quinn play in a meaningful way.

As Tom has stated numerous times, it does fly in the face of logic to draft a guy many consider to be at worst the most NFL ready college prospect maybe ever and then never even give him a chance to show what he can do on this level.

It just wouldn't make much sense regardless of what DA turns out to be this year because it seems unlikely we'd ever recoup that 1st rounder for Quinn in a trade.

It would be like buying a brand new car, driving it off the lot and then turning right around to trade it in as being "used".

Anyway, Rodgers (edit: was) probably better off waiting and Quinn would be too, if we could get away with winning without him for another year.

quote:

probably better off waiting

For three years? I don't buy that.

I don't think the evidence supports that theory either.

There's no replacement for learning while playing at the highest level. If you aren't playing in NFL regular season games, especially as a starter, you can only develop so far. Ultimately, you need playing time.

There's no hard and fast rule here, but the one thing we have to do SOONER rather than later, is end the QB debate once and for all. (And before someone posts that there isn't a debate, don't bother)

If DA gets the start he may be on a short leash but i suspect he will improve over last year i would really like the browns to use both QBs conditionally to try and spark the offense with quinn when DA is in Dr.Jekl mode which is bound to happen..

Last years loss to cincy is the perfect example of when a QB absolutely needs to be benched even KW2 and BE looked defeated after DAs back to back pickoffs i think BQ could have given the team hope and maybe have turned that game around i really blame RAC and chud for that debackle more than DA...

quote:

Originally posted by damajuki:

a guy many consider to be at worst the most NFL ready college prospect maybe ever

I think you meant to say NFL clipboard ready college prospect maybe ever

Now maybe if he could throw a football like Derek Anderson he could get his ass on the field.

and Charlie Weis hasn't won since Ty Willinghams recruits graduated, so what are you listening to him for anyways?

quote:

Originally posted by gippus:
If DA gets the start he may be on a short leash but i suspect he will improve over last year i would really like the browns to use both QBs conditionally to try and spark the offense with quinn when DA is in Dr.Jekl mode which is bound to happen..

Last years loss to cincy is the perfect example of when a QB absolutely needs to be benched even KW2 and BE looked defeated after DAs back to back pickoffs i think BQ could have given the team hope and maybe have turned that game around i really blame RAC and chud for that debackle more than DA...

You really think he'll be on a short leash after signing that hefty contract?

quote:

Originally posted by The Return of Quinn:
You really think he'll be on a short leash after signing that hefty contract?

The plan is to say something so many times it starts to begin seeming like its the truth.

"BQ starts by Miami game, BQ starts by Miami game, BQ starts by Miami game"

"Trade DA, Trade DA, Trade DA, Trade DA"

"QB competition, QB competition, QB competition"

"Short leash, short leash, short leash"

Then if it doesn't happen act like you're shocked and move on and do it again with the next rumor.

Lumbergh will never EVER be able to separate himself from his affection and loyalty to DA to be even partially objective about him. It also leads him to have the opposite reaction to any other QB on the Browns roster. ("Since they might be perceived as a threat to my boy, they must be inferior!")

If DA can improve his accuracy and decision making ability to offset the fact he'll never make plays with his feet, we might have a winner. Point is, this isn't Brett Favre/Aaron Rogers. DA still has to prove he's the long term answer. On that point, nothing has changed.

The only thing the presence of BQ provides is a potential alternative. Obviously, he's a larger unknown that DA at this point.

So, will he be on a short leash? Maybe.

If he struggles with the same, systemic problems he's had since college, yeah, the leash will be pretty short.

I wish he'd consider taking part in discussions instead of the same tired one-liners supporting DA. Zzzzzzzz...

quote:

Originally posted by Greythan:

quote:

probably better off waiting

For three years? I don't buy that.

I don't think the evidence supports that theory either.

There's no replacement for learning while playing at the highest level. If you aren't playing in NFL regular season games, especially as a starter, you can only develop so far. Ultimately, you need playing time.

There's no hard and fast rule here, but the one thing we have to do SOONER rather than later, is end the QB debate once and for all. (And before someone posts that there isn't a debate, don't bother)

Good post, G, and I don't actually disagree at all.

To clarify my position:

I think Rodgers sitting for three years was probably a good thing for him because of his age and who he was sitting behind. He's only now entering his physical prime and that's after three years learning the pro game. That can't be a bad thing.

As for Quinn, I didn't mean to imply Quinn should sit for three years like Rodgers did only that, if the team doesn't need him, sitting will help prepare him for when he eventually plays.

There is no replacing game experience and he will make mistakes when he does play but I think based on the reports of his being a practice and film rat, the more he studies now, the less he'll have to worry about later.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
I wish he'd consider taking part in discussions instead of the same tired one-liners supporting DA. Zzzzzzzz...

Best to just ignore him, shep.

Why these guys continue to come on here to post the same things repeatedly without adding to or taking anything away from the discussion is beyond reason.

Quinn is only about 10 months younger than Rodgers. Quinn played four years while Rodgers came out at 20, after his Junior year. He also only had something like 20 Div 1 starts because he started at a Juco.

In Rodgers case, as young as he was, I think the three years is fine. There really isn't much difference age wise between him and a rookie or one year guy and he sure hasn't taken any hits.

The key would be to actually start in the offense you've been watching and learning for three years.

You guys would know better than me but I'm not so sure about Anderson. Didn't he really buff up his stats with the two games against Cincinnati? UCLA could have cut apart their defense!

quote:

Originally posted by UCRaider:
You guys would know better than me but I'm not so sure about Anderson. Didn't he really buff up his stats with the two games against Cincinnati? UCLA could have cut apart their defense!

We're not so sure on Anderson yet, but we're pretty safe anyways with Quinn around as a hedge.

Not to nitpick, but didn't the Raiders just overpay Tommy Kelly and Gibril Wilson and lose up-and-comer Chris Clemons? Now wonder you're back on the Browns boards

quote:

Originally posted by mz:

quote:

Originally posted by UCRaider:
You guys would know better than me but I'm not so sure about Anderson. Didn't he really buff up his stats with the two games against Cincinnati? UCLA could have cut apart their defense!

We're not so sure on Anderson yet, but we're pretty safe anyways with Quinn around as a hedge.

Not to nitpick, but didn't the Raiders just overpay Tommy Kelly and Gibril Wilson and lose up-and-comer Chris Clemons? Now wonder you're back on the Browns boards

Tommy Kelly wasn't really overpaid. The deal is heavily backloaded and the signing bonus is divied up into the seven years.

Year one - 2.5 mil
Year two - 4 mil
Year three - 7 mil
Year four - 9 mil

and it gets steeper from there. I'm sure Kelly knows he won't sniff years 4-7. Believe all the ESPN and media hype you want.. the contract isn't as bad as it seems.

Tommy Kelly is a good player. Our run d really went to shit when he went down for the season last year.

I have a wait and see approach with Wilson but at this point, the Raiders have to overpay to acquire talent.

BAt least we have draft picks in rounds one and two! haha

I agree that Kelly is a good player, but aren't you a tad upset that you guys let Clemons go???

PS - I'll take Brady Quinn, Corey Williams, and Shaun Rogers in the first three rounds of the draft, no problem.

quote:

Last years loss to cincy is the perfect example of when a QB absolutely needs to be benched even KW2 and BE looked defeated after DAs back to back pickoffs i think BQ could have given the team hope and maybe have turned that game around i really blame RAC and chud for that debackle more than DA...

I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I'm getting a little tired of lumping DA's Pro Bowl season into a couple of bad games. Games that were nearly won despite his mistakes. A windy day in Cincy? An under-estimation of a decent team in Arizona? That's what DA's season boils down to? You can't just sit a guy who, at that point, was leading his team to the playoffs. BTW, are you gonna put in Ken Dorsey when BQ throws a couple of picks after DA's gone? That is all.