Monday, February 8, 2010

Browns quarterback assessment, part 2

In part one of the Browns QB assessment, I compared Quinn to a variety of other NFL starters at comparable stages in their careers. What we discovered is that Quinn was a little less than his counterparts, nearly equaling the statistical atrocity that is JaMarcus Russell. In part 2, we're going to try and be a little bit more fair to Quinn. Instead of stacking his numbers against other QBs in the league, guys who should be the basis for comparison, we'll stack his numbers up against all the other starting QBs the Browns have had since 1999—the dregs of the dregs/ his peers. If Quinn's numbers drift to the bottom of this pile of castoffs, hasbeens and neverwases, then that says something. No excuses for being at the bottom of this shit sandwich.

I am comparing the first full year each of these jabronis had as a starting QB for the Browns. Bold numbers are for the best in each category and red is for the worst (minimum 8 games, sorry Spergon and Luke ... I've highlighted them in pink just for fun.)

.......................G.....comp%.....yds.....TDs....INTs.....QB rating
Couch, T......... 15.....55...........2,447....15........13...........73
Wynn, S.......... 7......40............167........0.........1...........41
Holcomb, K. ...10.... 63 .........1,797.....10.......12.............74
Garcia, J......... 11.....57............1,731 ....10........9...........76
Mcown, L.. ..... 5.....49............608.......4..........7...........52
Dilfer, T. .........11....59.8.........2,321.....11.......12...........77
Frye, C. .......... 13....64...........2,454......10.......17.........72
Anderson, D... 16....56............3,787.....29......19........82.5
Quinn, B ........10.....53...........1,339......8........7..........67

OK, so if we're excluding the extra-special cases of Wynn and McCown, whom we never really considered starting options at the time, Quinn's numbers are the worst. Granted, not by much over some of the guys—and he took a little bit better care of the ball—but still, that's not good. I mean, we HATED pretty much every guy on this list during various stages of their careers here.

Just out of curiosity, let's see the combined stats of McCown and Wynn. Maybe if we combine them, we'll create a QB that's worse than Quinn, numbers-wise at least.

McWynn, S.L. ....12...45.........775.........4..........8..........47

There we go. Does that make anyone feel better about Quinn at QB next year? Umm, no? OK, well, I've got one last basis for comparison—wins and losses. Sure, Quinn's numbers are the worst, for the most part, but did his intangibles lead to team success? Maybe the numbers aren't telling the whole story.

'99 Couch = 2-13
'03 Holcomb = 2-6
'04 Garcia = 2-8
'05 Dilfer = 4-7
'06 Frye = 3-9
'07 Anderson = 9-6
'09 Quinn = 2-7

Welp, that didn't help. Jesus. Anyone else want to stab pencils in their eyes? What a thoroughly depressing post this is.

So, Quinn didn't stack up well against his contemporaries, AND he didn't stack up against other Browns QBs. He drifted to the bottom of a list prominently involving Trent Dilfer. Seriously, other than the flash-in-the-pan season from Anderson, that is the maybe the worst list of QB seasons ever, and Quinn couldn't even move to the middle of the pack.

I know the sob stories about not having much to work with and all the regime changes and blah blah blah, hell, I even believe them to some extent, but let's get real. It doesn't seem like we're witnessing the growth of a young Joe Montana here.

So Chris, why don't we go with Anderson then? I mean, he did have that one good year right? Maybe he's the guy.

Good question. Let me analyze that as in-depth as I can...

Fuck no.

So where does this leave us? If Quinn's numbers shout "Bum!" and we DO NOT want to go back to the DA experiment, does that mean we should *gulp* draft another QB and try again? Or do we trust in the powers of Holmgren, draft some more WR talent, let Quinn gel with the current guys and the gameplan and give him one last shot to prove himself?

We'll leave that part of the discussion for part 3.


No comments:

Post a Comment