Message Boards

Bump

He's a good QB and he needs a shot. I love the guys personality, he's so funny in interviews and seems like the "awe shucks" country boy. I wanna see the kid play (I don't know if I should call him kid since we are almost the same age lol)

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 10:32 AM ET  10.11 by Pittfan14

He's a good QB and he needs a shot. I love the guys personality, he's so funny in interviews and seems like the "awe shucks" country boy. I wanna see the kid play (I don't know if I should call him kid since we are almost the same age lol)

It just seemed to me, not that you watched the game rocker, that with 2 injured QBs that couldn't move in the pocket because of ankle injuries, that putting in the mobile McCoy would have at least kept the defense from blitzing on every play. Kudos to the Atlanta defense and their coordinator for smelling blood and attacking, but shame on the Cleveland coaches for letting our QBs bleed in the water.

I didn't get a chance to watch the game because I didn't get it on TV. Sorry to hear about your QB situation that sucks.

Especially going into Pitt this weekend...two bumb ankles or the rookie at QB? Can't catch a break. I guess Josh Cribbs is going to have to shoulder the load on special teams for this one to be close.

Let's be honest, most rookie QB's can't come in - with no snaps that week - and get things done. McCoy is talented but you can't just drop him in a meat grinder and expect results.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 11:01 AM ET  10.11 by Blood Rayne

Let's be honest, most rookie QB's can't come in - with no snaps that week - and get things done. McCoy is talented but you can't just drop him in a meat grinder and expect results.

but playing an injured QB that cannot move in the pocket to open passing lanes (resulting in two interceptions, one a pick-six) is the better option? If Jake was healthy enough to play, then he would have started. With Cleveland's dink and dunk and run for your life offense, would it have been that difficult for McCoy to come in and sling a few? If he's not ready at any given moment, why is he on the roster? Reps are important for timing, but this was a dire situation in my opinion, and the Cleveland coaching staff dropped the ball on this one. I'm usually very supportive of the coaching staff, and for allowing rookie QBs to develop and not throw them to the wolves before they are ready, but this was a totally different situation.

colt will get a shot.... he needs time and some maturing. the NFL is not the place to throw a rookie in and have him eaten up. very few can start and be effective the first yr. will colt grow into a strong QB... time will tell. surely he can prove to be a "romo" type QB in the long haul... which is a VERY agerage QB.

I'm not suggesting that Cleveland sit Jake and Seneca for the rest of the year and start McCoy because they have a losing record. I'm suggesting that McCoy would have given Cleveland the best opportunity to win on Sunday against the Falcons because he was the only one that wasn't fighting through an injury. Why put your starters in a position to be seriously injured and out for the rest of the year when you have a healthy replacement sitting on the bench? Why not run the wildcat with Cribbs until the Falcons show that they can stop it?

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 12:05 PM ET  10.11 by -ripper-

I didn't see the game either. Why so much pressure? I thought the O line was supposed to be pretty decent, no? RBs not picking up the blitz? Atlanta bringing the house and no quick pass options? When teams blitz that heavily they must be made to pay. I know, duh, and easier said than done, but if they don't pay they'll keep coming. I like Colt a lot. Great character guy and one of the "winner" guys. And I thought he possessed the skills going in to fit in somewhere in the NFL, even if he's not 6-4, 240. I guess Mangini just doesn't think he's ready and doesn't want him to become David Carr lying flat on his back his entire first year. Or, maybe as you said, he isn't developing as expected? I haven't seen much on that topic.

The O line was okay, but in the second half when Jake was hobbling around, he couldn't even move enough to step up into the pocket when there was pressure. His ankle was clearly bothering him (given the fact it would take him 2 seconds to turn back around to face the field on play action plays) and I thought that they should have taken him out of the game. Why risk bigger injury? Colt is not that fragile, and the wild cat plays went for at least 5 yards. There were smarter, more efficient options in my opinion.

You can't judge Colt's success or failure based on what this coaching staff does with him. After all these are the same geniuses who failed to start Jerome Harrison until the final 4 weeks of last season. Then they followed up by failing to feed Hillis until the two games in.

Anyway I'd want him to sit this one out because I think he's going to have to get used to another coaching staff and offensive scheme starting next year (fingers crossed)

Plus even if he is nothing more than a career back up, he was a mid to late third round pick. Or about what you'd expect to pay.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 11:54 AM ET  10.11 by LowCountryBrownsFan

I'm not suggesting that Cleveland sit Jake and Seneca for the rest of the year and start McCoy because they have a losing record. I'm suggesting that McCoy would have given Cleveland the best opportunity to win on Sunday against the Falcons because he was the only one that wasn't fighting through an injury. Why put your starters in a position to be seriously injured and out for the rest of the year when you have a healthy replacement sitting on the bench? Why not run the wildcat with Cribbs until the Falcons show that they can stop it?

I hear you, but physical ability alone wont win ball games. Colt lacks experience with the 1st team offense and doesn't know how to read and react to defenses at this level. An injured Jake was better than a healthy Colt.

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 12:36 PM ET  10.11 by Blood Rayne

I hear you, but physical ability alone wont win ball games. Colt lacks experience with the 1st team offense and doesn't know how to read and react to defenses at this level. An injured Jake was better than a healthy Colt.

So, 13-23, 97 yards, and 2 int's is better then letting Colt finish out a half of football? I know that it is speculation, but with the inability to escape any kind of blitz, Jake was a sitting target. I'd like to think that Colt could have at least avoided a blitz or two with his feet.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 12:49 PM ET  10.11 by LowCountryBrownsFan

So, 13-23, 97 yards, and 2 int's is better then letting Colt finish out a half of football? I know that it is speculation, but with the inability to escape any kind of blitz, Jake was a sitting target. I'd like to think that Colt could have at least avoided a blitz or two with his feet.

He was also prone to making more mistakes because he doesn't know what he's doing. So while he may have avoided a blitz, he was also more likely to throw more INT's because he can't read NFL defenses yet, he doesn't know how defenses disguise coverages and how fast things go at this level.

Look, if he were Michael Vick - ok, you'd have a point. But McCoy doesn't have 4.2 speed.

He wasn't ready yesterday. He's your QB of the future, but not now.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that they are doing everything they can NOT to use Colt... not because he is terrible... but because they feel like one of the things we have done too much since we came back to Cleveland is put rookie QB's in game situations too soon. I think the goal was to only put him in if we can't even hobble a guy out there.

He may very well have done fine yesterday, but then the immediate "make him the starter" cries would have started... or worse yet, he fails and we write him off right away. As much as we were hurting yesterday, I am glad he didn't go in.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 12:58 PM ET  10.11 by Blood Rayne

He was also prone to making more mistakes because he doesn't know what he's doing. So while he may have avoided a blitz, he was also more likely to throw more INT's because he can't read NFL defenses yet, he doesn't know how defenses disguise coverages and how fast things go at this level. Look, if he were Michael Vick - ok, you'd have a point. But McCoy doesn't have 4.2 speed. He wasn't ready yesterday. He's your QB of the future, but not now.

How do you know what his status is? Are you at practice? I understand that he is a rookie, and may not have a great grasp on things, but he is 100% healthy! I've sat through enough of the QB turnstiles in Cleveland to know there needs to be stability there, and that starting a QB that is not ready usually bites you in the butt. This was a HEALTH decision. That's why I think that it was a poor one. I'm not asking for Colt to start the rest of the year--just would have like him in there in the late 3rd, 4th quarter for yesterday's game.

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 01:15 PM ET  10.11 by LowCountryBrownsFan

How do you know what his status is? Are you at practice? I understand that he is a rookie, and may not have a great grasp on things, but he is 100% healthy! I've sat through enough of the QB turnstiles in Cleveland to know there needs to be stability there, and that starting a QB that is not ready usually bites you in the butt. This was a HEALTH decision. That's why I think that it was a poor one. I'm not asking for Colt to start the rest of the year--just would have like him in there in the late 3rd, 4th quarter for yesterday's game.

The starting QB gets all the reps, McCoy isn't the starter so he's going to have less chemistry with the starting offense. Simple.

He's also not ready for what the opposing D will throw at him.

Your thread is asking if he's a wasted draft pick and hypothosizes (sp?) that because he wasn't put in, he might be a wasted pick.

To tell on that we need to wait and see what happens over the next few years. One does not make that decision based upon whether or not he was pulled off the bench in his first year to play a half.

Your HC had a choice: Put in a healthy but inexpeienced McCoy or an injured veteran named Jake. I think Jake was the better choice because he's got more experience, even though he lacks mobility. You disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 01:14 PM ET  10.11 by BuckAye

He may very well have done fine yesterday, but then the immediate "make him the starter" cries would have started... or worse yet, he fails and we write him off right away. As much as we were hurting yesterday, I am glad he didn't go in.

I know that you and I agree about the mob mentality in Cleveland. I never really took this into consideration (which is weird, because it is the situation every year). Maybe they stopped a QB controversy, but when it comes to the health of the players it raises a red flag to me.

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 01:21 PM ET  10.11 by Blood Rayne

Your HC had a choice: Put in a healthy but inexpeienced McCoy or an injured veteran named Jake. I think Jake was the better choice because he's got more experience, even though he lacks mobility. You disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.

Sounds fair. I'll agree to disagree.