How does one team botch a key position? By constantly shuffling it. Here's a look at players who have started games for the Browns at quarteback since 1999. And if a the Browns went from player A to B to A again, it's all included in the list. In reverse order, counting Sunday's game against Cincinnati:
2009
Derek Anderson
Brady Quinn
2008
Bruce Gradkowski
Ken Dorsey
Derek Anderson
Brady Quinn
Derek Anderson
2007
Derek Anderson
Charlie Frye
2006
Charlie Frye
Derek Anderson
Charlie Frye
2005
Charle Frye
Trent Dilfer
2004
Kelly Holcomb
Luke McCown
Kelly Holcomb
Jeff Garcia
2003
Tim Couch
Kelly Holcomb
Tim Couch
Kelly Holcomb
2002
Kelly Holcomb
Tim Couch
2001
Tim Couch
2000
Doug Pederson
Spergon Wynn
Doug Pederson
Tim Couch
1999
Ty Detmer
Tim Couch
Ty Detmer
There some real futility in that list, buddy. Not a qualified starter among them, either, which is shocking, considering we've drafted in the Top 5 "how many years?"
My personal choice for all-time worst was Doug Pederson. Oh my, was he awwwwful. Chaz Frye's a close second. And just because I can't STAND his arrogant mouth, lop Dilfer in with worst, as well. What a freakin loser he is.
Pat, this was painful to look at. It's a sad scenario for a once proud franchise. What makes it even worse is that this saga continues. I think Crennel and now Man-Stupid have ruined a young QB named Quinn. I hope Brady moves to a team with competent coaching that also knows how to pick NFL type players.
please demand a trade, Quinn……players have been doing it ever sice the advent of agents……please get out of here while you're in one piece.
This list is the first thing I think is an unfair shot at the team. Nobody 'decided' to go to Spergon Wynn or Bruce Gradkowski– they played because everyone else was hurt
If you wanted to put them in a second column right beside the first, showng who was an injury replacement, that would be not only fair but helpful– showing how many times the team got the most important player hurt– that would be both fair and helpful, e.g.
Changed Hurt
Gradkowski
Dorsey
Quinn
Anderson
You look at that list and you can wonder how these guys decided not to draft two scrub linebackers over a right tackle and deoorant (right guard) .
On the flipside, Detmer>Couch or Quinn>Anderson (this year) should be in bold, because it was an elective decision– they didn't have to, they just did.
I would figure we see Quinn again in game 6 or after INT #8, whichever comes first.
The website ate my formatting… sorry.
…and how many quarterbacks did the Browns use prior to being moved? I did this list for my own amusement last season – there are almost as many QBs in the first edition of the team as they're have been in the second.
So, I can see why totally ignoring the fact that we haven't had a decent, able-bodied offensive line isn't the problem. Or the lack of wide receivers and running backs. Yep – all on the QB.
Geoff: Quinn will back in as soon as DA is completely mangled by some linebacker. Heck, he could be back in as soon as the second series on Sunday.
Nothing breeds confidence like that overwhelming stench of desperation!
Geoff … Are the Browns the ONLY team in the league that lost quarterbacks to injury? If they were, I'd give your "unfair" point more credence. Guys get hurt. It happens. To every team. But it's compounded by all the indecisiveness and change that's occurred in Cleveland as well. … pat
I know every team has injuries, Pat. But if you title a piece "Doing the quarterback shuffle"– shuffle being something you choose to do– and you include injury replacements, it doesn't strike me as apples-apples.
Granted that a team isn't obligated to replace an injured QB… or even to use a QB at all. Actually, given some of the players the Browns have tried there, it might have been better not to have used a QB at all in some games. Or maybe to switch to the double-wing or the "guards back"..
And let me ask you a question: Are the Browns the only team to have difficulty settling on a QB? Here's that list for another team (games started in parentheses)
2009
Joe Flacco (3)
2008
Joe Flacco (16)
2007
Kyle Boller (8)
Steve McNair (6)
Troy Smith (2)
2006
Steve McNair (16)
2005
Kyle Boller (9)
Anthony Wright (7)
2004
Kyle Boller (16)
2003
Kyle Boller (9)
Anthony Wright (7)
2002
Jeff Blake (10)
Chris Redman (6)
2001
Elvis Grbac (14)
Randall Cunningham (2)
2000
Tony Banks (8)
Trent Dilfer (8)
1999
Tony Banks (10)
Stoney Case (4)
Scott Mitchell (2)
Your list had 32 entries. Mine has 20. But, because I didn't have access to game-by-game data (as you did), I only counted a player once per year. In 2001, I'm pretty sure Randall Cunningham started two games because Elvis Grbac got dinged up. So if I were doing your list, I'd list Grbac twice that year.
I'll bet, if I counted your way, the Ravens would climb into the 30's. Matter of fact, so might the Steelers.(who had 19 guys start, including three in 2005, when they won the Super Bowl).
And guess what? When I checked Cincinnati– just so I had a number for every team in the division– I found that they used the fewest number of starting QBs (18) since 1999..
if I go back and count each QB just once per year– so I can compare all four evenly with the data I have– here's what I get:
Cleveland…..25
Baltimore…..20
Pittsburgh….19
Cincinnati…..18
That's a spread of 7. Over 11 years. And the second-worst franchise is actually the best at stability at QB. You could chart the other three teams using your method, but I'm guessing the results would look pretty similar.
Look, I agree with your general point– that an offense can't get continuity if the QB changes constantly. I just don't feel that what you have presented makes that case convincingly.
OK, here are a couple questions for Geoff & Pat to ponder – if they are inclined:
1) How many of the QBs on both lists were "veterans" or at least had an honest season under their belt, injury-free?
2) How many could've been considered 'successful' before they came in as the starter?
I'm guessing the only solid QB inherited by the Browns on that list was Garcia or even Capt. Haterade (Dilfer) and that Couch "earned his stripes". As for the Ravens, its a little more consistent on the experience level.
This is my biggest argument for the "Don't draft another one": it seems we get a new quarterback without at least one solid season in the NFL and then we chew him up and spit him out and find a new one the next year.
Geoff: Two things….
1) It's JEFF, not Geoff.
2) Stop trying to screw up a sensational story. The real point is, in over a decade and nearly 3 dozen quarterbacks, not a SINGLE ONE has been qualified or talented enough to lead this franchise. And THAT, my friend, is inexcusable & unforgivable.
Geoff, love the analysis. It's much more telling to take a look at how the numbers compare across the league. Though I would make the point that we've used 25% more QBs than the next closest competitors in the AFC North is a pretty high number.
Also I've gotta say Elizabeth is right on. We CANNOT draft a QB in the 2010 draft. We'll likely be losing Edwards and Jamal Lewis will likely be on his way out (age) as well. Build the lines, build the defense, maybe find some skill position guys, but drafting another top QB who's going to flame out because he has nobody around him is a complete waste of a pick.
Just imagine where we'd be today if we'd have done some things like listening to our scouts and drafting Seymour over Warren, Phil Savage not whiffing on nearly every 3rd thru 7th round pick in his tenure, or trading our #1 for Ditka's entire draft in 99… sigh.
Elizabeth, you always seem to want research where the criteria are based on opinion. That can't be done, if you want an answer that makes sense. It's necessary to define things like "veteran", "injury-free", "successful" and "full season".
And even then, you have to be aware of the pitfalls. For example, one of the quarterbacks on the list would be a 'can't-miss, no-brainer' by your standards.
He was a veteran– 90 career games, 56 of them starts (low because he'd been backing up a Hall of Famer).
He was successful–career rating over 80 when acquired; had gone to the Pro Bowl the season (when he threw for 4,100 yards, 28 TDs and only 14 INTs).
He certainly had a full year to do his thing– 14 starts and 33 attempts a game. He had a supporting cast– two starters on the offense made the Pro Bowl that year; three if you count the second-string receiver who made it as a return guy.
And he bombed. His name was Elvis Grbiac and his 2001 was so terrible that the Ravens asked him to take a pay cut and he retired to spite them.
Meanwhile, there's the insane decision to draft a QB even though the team had a veteran (a former Pro Bowl player), a #1 pick only four years ago and a former Heisman Trophy winner.
And that would be Joe Flacco, the other three guys being Steve McNair, Kyle Boller and Troy Smith.
You can't state an opinion and then order up research to support it– if you do, you wind up hiring Eric Mangenius (because 10 of the last 15 Super Bowls were won by guys who were fired and never wore green and red socks). What you're better off doing is asking questions like:
"How many seasons/games/starts does it take a QB before he makes the Pro Bowl (or has a season with a QB rating over 90, or throws 25 touchdowns and 12 INTs or less or however you define 'good')?"
Or you could ask, "What's the lowest rating– in a season with 300 attempts– compiled by a QB who ended up making the Pro Bowl?"
Generally it's best if you don't know the answer and don't have a rooting interest in the outcome.
I would think that the Browns have bigger fish to fry than taking a QB with the first pick. I rather liked the strategy they tried this year– trading down a lot. I just think they picked the wrong player (OT Michael Oher, playing great for Baltimore, went two picks after Mack and they could have had a center with two of their three #2 picks).
However, if they feel someone is going to be a superstar, they should take him. The object lesson would be the Atlanta Falcons. Some years ago, they had a high pick, and there were a couple of 'can't miss' guys available. Player A was a running back with breakaway speed and power; Player B was a guy who could play both defensive line and linebacker.
The problem was that the Falcons had a running back who was 36 and had missed 1,000 yards by less than ten yards in two consecutive years– averaging about 4 yards a crack. (And he did it again the next season). They also had a defensive end who'd just made his fifth consecutive Pro Bowl.
So the Falcons went with Quarterback Steve Bartkowski and left Randy White and Walter Payton on the board. Bart made it to Hawaii twice… but still.
I could pick other examples– New England passing up Jerry Rice (and drafting a stinking center) because they had Stanley Morgan and Irving Fryar to name another– but I haven't done that story in a while.
And Sean, "Geoff" is the correct spelling of the name– it's how it was spelled several hundred years before the Americans changed it, and it's the way the rest of the world spells it. I deal in facts, whereas you deal mostly in unrefined organic fertilizer.
You don't know that any of the quarterbacks taken couldn't have made it. Since bad teams are usually able to make anyone bad, it's possible that if the Browns had drafted Tom Brady in 2000, he'd be the butt of the jokes and you'd be hooting about how they let the Pats get Spergon Wynn.
There have been a bunch of coaches who won with guys who weren't considered world-class players. The problem is the Browns have never hired any of them.
There was a back coming out that year who was very highly touted, but they passed on him
dwhit, I agree with pretty much everything you say. I was especially mad that they turn down the deal Mike Ditka offered.
I would put the same asterisk on arbitrarily excluding any position. I also don't like taking receivers high. And I'd point out that it is possible to get a perfectly good running back in rounds 2-4.
For example, Frank Gore was the first pick in round 3 of the 2005 draft and three guys who are arguably better– Marion Barber, Brandon Jacobs and Darren Sproles– were taken in round four (while the Browns were taking Antonio Perkins because Savage liked undersized nickel corners and anyone from Oklahoma).
Geoff,
Agree completely with the trading down strategy, and who knows… Mack's 3 games into his rookie season, he could very well turn into the player we thought he was when he was drafted. You've likely heard this, but there's research out there that says because of the high bonuses paid to players in the top half of the first round it's counter productive to pick someone that high unless they're a complete can't miss. If we can target a guy who helps us and trade down to get him I'm always a fan of adding picks… especially with how much talent we need across the board.
I was just thinking today about how I was toeing the "don't take a QB under any circumstance" party line, and I figured that came out a little wrong on my part. For instance, what if Bradford's shoulder issues cause him to dip to the 2nd round? He probably would have gone ahead of Stafford if he came out this past year, I'd definitely grab him if something like that happened, or if we had another shot at someone we thought slipped and had a lot of value.