Tweet
Donovan McNabb? Really? The Browns just drafted Brandon Weeden with the No. 22 overall pick, aren't even certain that Colt McCoy isn't a viable NFL quarterback and have a young, improved roster. So you suggest a dumpster dive, the quarterbacking equivalent of a search through a pile of discarded lottery tickets in the hope that someone missed a winner?
As Dr. Peter Venkman asked, that's your plan?
Well, if Browns decision-makers could admit that a "succession plan" that involves handing the keys from one young failed starter to one untested rookie is more hope than solution, then yes. If they could admit that a little clipboard marinating would actually increase Weeden's chances to succeed, not derail them, then yes. If they consider that McNabb knows the elements of a Brad Childress offense as well or better than any quarterback alive -- and that McNabb openly endorses the guy -- then yes.
Let's consider the evidence.
Pushing Weeden isn't a 'plan'
Start with this list: Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn, Jason Campbell, J.P. Losman, Rex Grossman, Jim Druckenmiller, Tommy Maddox, Todd Marinovich. Plenty of adjectives come to mind, but let's group them based on what they actually are. These are the quarterbacks drafted in the same first-round range (20s) as Weeden over the last 25 years. It's no surprise that most of these guys failed as starters, or at least face still considerable questions about their value as NFL-level passers. That they were drafted in the same range as Weeden and largely struggled certainly doesn't constitute a massive data set. After all, rookies -- even the guys taken No. 1 overall -- routinely struggle mightily if asked to start early.
But of this group, every player was asked to start at some point as a rookie, save for Quinn, who got his shot in Year 2. Browns fans don't need to be reminded that Quinn's sterling growth pattern at Notre Dame and strong profile as an accurate, experienced passer out of college didn't amount to much.
But there's one name missing: Aaron Rodgers, drafted at No. 24 overall in 2005, was the lone QB in this group given significant time to develop. (And he did develop, not merely sit; his three-year role as an understudy was a period that included a total makeover of his delivery, for one.)
Predicting quarterback transitions based on draft placement is a lesson in guesswork, but there's a mountain of evidence to shoot down any proof that handing the reins to a rookie is a surefire plan to add wins. And I can hear the contention that Weeden's age means he would have been taken far higher. But again, that doesn't dramatically increase his chances of succeeding early. Assuming Weeden can simply step in and provide a significant upgrade over McCoy is a leap, period. And even the Browns know it.
Weeden throws a pretty ball, but he comes from a well-honed system, with very good targets, including the best wideout in the draft. He can drill the deep, intermediate ball, but his biggest weakness is the ability to deliver with defenders in his face, limiting the best aspect to his game (you need time to let those deep routes develop). The tape shows that his ability to throw receivers open under duress and to accurately deliver into tight windows while manipulating a collapsing pocket are major areas of concern. You simply won't find a scout or evaluator who points to Weeden and sees a finished product.
Of course, fans eager to see him start will claim his age dictates it. Yep, he'll be 29 in September. But age is not experience, and he lacks even half the game experience of the QB he's supposed to replace. McCoy started 53 college games, has two years of NFL experience and might actually be better suited to the Childress offense, a West Coast construct that emphasizes shorter throws, which won't challenge McCoy's limited arm.
Running in place
Yet McCoy doesn't look like the immediate answer, either.
Colt McCoy, NFL Career
Stat 2010 2011
Comp pct 60.8 57.2
Air yds per Comp 14.5 12.6
Pass yds per att 7.1 5.9
According to ESPN Stats & Information, there wasn't an area where McCoy showed improvement from his rookie season to 2011. (See chart.)
McCoy just wasn't completing passes at the same rate last year, and even when he was, they weren't getting down the field as much. Worse, his accuracy actually fell off on shorter throws (something that will concern Childress). The only area in which accuracy jumped was on deep throws, perhaps a result of adding a viable downfield threat in Greg Little. The question surrounding McCoy was his ceiling. Last year showed that question was a pretty fair one.
Accuracy on different throws
Distance 2010 2011
5 yds or fewer 72.4 62.7
6-10 yds 56.8 58.2
11-20 yds 59.3 46.9
21+ yds 23.1 38.9
Fans of McCoy could certainly raise a major point: Where's the help? As Football Outsiders noted this past week, Cleveland is a disaster at wide receiver. The Browns won't be much deeper at wide receiver this year, though Little should make progress (remember he sat out his final year at North Carolina).
But that might be the best argument of all for bringing in McNabb.
Comfortable surroundings
If any QB over the last 15 years could be defined by reasonable success with a dearth of elite targets, it's McNabb. No, he hasn't been a superstar, but three straight NFC Championship Game appearances, six Pro Bowls, a career TD-INT ratio of 234-117 and a career INT rate of just 2.2 percent aren't shabby, and McNabb's tenure in Philly was defined by what he didn't have. The Eagles somewhat famously ran out extremely limited wide receiver options during the bulk of his tenure. It was a league punch line. Todd Pinkston, Reggie Brown, Freddie Mitchell, Charles Johnson, James Thrash, Antonio Freeman? When McNabb was finally paired with an elite wideout, he reached the Super Bowl with Terrell Owens, drama be damned.
Yes, McNabb's last two seasons have been perfect ammunition for the "He's done" assessments. But context matters. After a career in one system, he played behind a total wreck of an offensive line in Washington in 2010 and again without elite targets. Last year, he was quietly not that bad in Minnesota, but the Vikings rightly went into transition mode after a series of baffling early-season meltdowns (with play-calling a major question).
Currently, McNabb is working hard on a comeback, and having spoken with George Whitfield Jr., the guy training him, the reports are extremely positive. Is that unbiased evidence? No. But neither is any assumption that McNabb has lost the ability to run an NFL offense based on what we've seen over the last two seasons.
Especially if it's an offense run by Childress.
The Browns currently face a tough decision. Here they have an improved defense with a potentially elite secondary, a dynamic new weapon on offense in Trent Richardson (who should be perfect in this offense), who will be running behind an offensive line that has improved with the addition of a new right tackle. Cleveland's real problem is one of perception. If the Browns don't hand the keys to Weeden, critics will claim they may have wasted a first-round pick, and on an old QB, no less. If they stick with McCoy, the perception is they wasted a pick and they're running in place with a player who regressed last season. If they bring in a veteran, they'll look desperate. After all, you're supposed to have a plan, right?
But that's a perception based on how things are supposed to work. Succession plans are just NFL corporate-speak, a nod to organizational purpose. In reality, another sub-.500 year as Cleveland breaks in yet another new QB could be cause for organizational turnover. McNabb is a buffer. He doesn't need a five-year deal. Bring him in; see if he can play. His upside is a chance to win a little more now while strengthening Weeden's chance to succeed.
Really, what do the Browns have to lose?
As Dr. Peter Venkman asked, that's your plan?
Well, if Browns decision-makers could admit that a "succession plan" that involves handing the keys from one young failed starter to one untested rookie is more hope than solution, then yes. If they could admit that a little clipboard marinating would actually increase Weeden's chances to succeed, not derail them, then yes. If they consider that McNabb knows the elements of a Brad Childress offense as well or better than any quarterback alive -- and that McNabb openly endorses the guy -- then yes.
Let's consider the evidence.
Pushing Weeden isn't a 'plan'
Start with this list: Tim Tebow, Brady Quinn, Jason Campbell, J.P. Losman, Rex Grossman, Jim Druckenmiller, Tommy Maddox, Todd Marinovich. Plenty of adjectives come to mind, but let's group them based on what they actually are. These are the quarterbacks drafted in the same first-round range (20s) as Weeden over the last 25 years. It's no surprise that most of these guys failed as starters, or at least face still considerable questions about their value as NFL-level passers. That they were drafted in the same range as Weeden and largely struggled certainly doesn't constitute a massive data set. After all, rookies -- even the guys taken No. 1 overall -- routinely struggle mightily if asked to start early.
But of this group, every player was asked to start at some point as a rookie, save for Quinn, who got his shot in Year 2. Browns fans don't need to be reminded that Quinn's sterling growth pattern at Notre Dame and strong profile as an accurate, experienced passer out of college didn't amount to much.
But there's one name missing: Aaron Rodgers, drafted at No. 24 overall in 2005, was the lone QB in this group given significant time to develop. (And he did develop, not merely sit; his three-year role as an understudy was a period that included a total makeover of his delivery, for one.)
Predicting quarterback transitions based on draft placement is a lesson in guesswork, but there's a mountain of evidence to shoot down any proof that handing the reins to a rookie is a surefire plan to add wins. And I can hear the contention that Weeden's age means he would have been taken far higher. But again, that doesn't dramatically increase his chances of succeeding early. Assuming Weeden can simply step in and provide a significant upgrade over McCoy is a leap, period. And even the Browns know it.
Weeden throws a pretty ball, but he comes from a well-honed system, with very good targets, including the best wideout in the draft. He can drill the deep, intermediate ball, but his biggest weakness is the ability to deliver with defenders in his face, limiting the best aspect to his game (you need time to let those deep routes develop). The tape shows that his ability to throw receivers open under duress and to accurately deliver into tight windows while manipulating a collapsing pocket are major areas of concern. You simply won't find a scout or evaluator who points to Weeden and sees a finished product.
Of course, fans eager to see him start will claim his age dictates it. Yep, he'll be 29 in September. But age is not experience, and he lacks even half the game experience of the QB he's supposed to replace. McCoy started 53 college games, has two years of NFL experience and might actually be better suited to the Childress offense, a West Coast construct that emphasizes shorter throws, which won't challenge McCoy's limited arm.
Running in place
Yet McCoy doesn't look like the immediate answer, either.
Colt McCoy, NFL Career
Stat 2010 2011
Comp pct 60.8 57.2
Air yds per Comp 14.5 12.6
Pass yds per att 7.1 5.9
According to ESPN Stats & Information, there wasn't an area where McCoy showed improvement from his rookie season to 2011. (See chart.)
McCoy just wasn't completing passes at the same rate last year, and even when he was, they weren't getting down the field as much. Worse, his accuracy actually fell off on shorter throws (something that will concern Childress). The only area in which accuracy jumped was on deep throws, perhaps a result of adding a viable downfield threat in Greg Little. The question surrounding McCoy was his ceiling. Last year showed that question was a pretty fair one.
Accuracy on different throws
Distance 2010 2011
5 yds or fewer 72.4 62.7
6-10 yds 56.8 58.2
11-20 yds 59.3 46.9
21+ yds 23.1 38.9
Fans of McCoy could certainly raise a major point: Where's the help? As Football Outsiders noted this past week, Cleveland is a disaster at wide receiver. The Browns won't be much deeper at wide receiver this year, though Little should make progress (remember he sat out his final year at North Carolina).
But that might be the best argument of all for bringing in McNabb.
Comfortable surroundings
If any QB over the last 15 years could be defined by reasonable success with a dearth of elite targets, it's McNabb. No, he hasn't been a superstar, but three straight NFC Championship Game appearances, six Pro Bowls, a career TD-INT ratio of 234-117 and a career INT rate of just 2.2 percent aren't shabby, and McNabb's tenure in Philly was defined by what he didn't have. The Eagles somewhat famously ran out extremely limited wide receiver options during the bulk of his tenure. It was a league punch line. Todd Pinkston, Reggie Brown, Freddie Mitchell, Charles Johnson, James Thrash, Antonio Freeman? When McNabb was finally paired with an elite wideout, he reached the Super Bowl with Terrell Owens, drama be damned.
Yes, McNabb's last two seasons have been perfect ammunition for the "He's done" assessments. But context matters. After a career in one system, he played behind a total wreck of an offensive line in Washington in 2010 and again without elite targets. Last year, he was quietly not that bad in Minnesota, but the Vikings rightly went into transition mode after a series of baffling early-season meltdowns (with play-calling a major question).
Currently, McNabb is working hard on a comeback, and having spoken with George Whitfield Jr., the guy training him, the reports are extremely positive. Is that unbiased evidence? No. But neither is any assumption that McNabb has lost the ability to run an NFL offense based on what we've seen over the last two seasons.
Especially if it's an offense run by Childress.
The Browns currently face a tough decision. Here they have an improved defense with a potentially elite secondary, a dynamic new weapon on offense in Trent Richardson (who should be perfect in this offense), who will be running behind an offensive line that has improved with the addition of a new right tackle. Cleveland's real problem is one of perception. If the Browns don't hand the keys to Weeden, critics will claim they may have wasted a first-round pick, and on an old QB, no less. If they stick with McCoy, the perception is they wasted a pick and they're running in place with a player who regressed last season. If they bring in a veteran, they'll look desperate. After all, you're supposed to have a plan, right?
But that's a perception based on how things are supposed to work. Succession plans are just NFL corporate-speak, a nod to organizational purpose. In reality, another sub-.500 year as Cleveland breaks in yet another new QB could be cause for organizational turnover. McNabb is a buffer. He doesn't need a five-year deal. Bring him in; see if he can play. His upside is a chance to win a little more now while strengthening Weeden's chance to succeed.
Really, what do the Browns have to lose?
approves of that possibility
Comment