"Derrick Anderson Sucks"

[kerouac9]

you know what the problem with simply looking at W/Ls and QB rating are? You're able to completely skew numbers. Besides that, why did you just completely ignore a game where he lead the Browns to a 33-30 win over a division title winning Seattle team with 364 yards with a 60% passing completion percentage with 1 pick and no TDs. Was it simply because you were looking at passer rating as the end all be all of whether or not he played well? I mean, in a game where his team scored 30 points and he threw for a ton of yards on decent completion percentage, that's a bad game because he got them close enough in scoring range to allow Jamal Lewis to score 3 TDs from inside the 2 yard line?

Again, I don't think Anderson's very good... but you're skewing numbers and flat out ignoring games where he beat good teams or played ok and lost close games to good teams.

Are you talking about this game: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/20071...:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay

The one where the Seahawks got out to a 21-7 lead because the Browns first two possessions went 3-and-out, Interception, TD (short field due to Seattle fumble), three-and-out, four-and-out (three straight incompletions by Anderson), field goal (first and goal at the 2, three straight incompletions by Anderson).

If we're not arguing that Anderson is a terrible quarterback, then why aren't we arguing FOR Matt Leinart? Matt Leinart may be a terrible quarterback; it's certainly possible, and there hasn't been a lot to say otherwise the past couple years. My point is that Derek Anderson's had 1109 career attempts to show everyone that he's a terrible quarterback. Matt Leinart has had 559. If we know that we're going to be bad with Anderson, then shouldn't we go with the guy we only think we're going to be bad with in Leinart?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Are you talking about this game: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/20071...:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay

The one where the Seahawks got out to a 21-7 lead because the Browns first two possessions went 3-and-out, Interception, TD (short field due to Seattle fumble), three-and-out, four-and-out (three straight incompletions by Anderson), field goal (first and goal at the 2, three straight incompletions by Anderson).

yeah, the game where he lead the team to a W against a Division winner leading the offense almost single-handedly to 33 points while being responsible for 364 of 428 total yards. You know... they do play games after the first quarter, right? But hey, if you want to count that as a bad game, well, then ok.

If we're not arguing that Anderson is a terrible quarterback, then why aren't we arguing FOR Matt Leinart? Matt Leinart may be a terrible quarterback; it's certainly possible, and there hasn't been a lot to say otherwise the past couple years. My point is that Derek Anderson's had 1109 career attempts to show everyone that he's a terrible quarterback. Matt Leinart has had 559. If we know that we're going to be bad with Anderson, then shouldn't we go with the guy we only think we're going to be bad with in Leinart?

honestly? I don't know. I guess I gotta believe Wiz thinks that maybe he can squeeze a 2007-Cleveland-like year out of Anderson which would probably be good enough to be somewhat respectable and that he truly believes Matt just sucks ass and would be an embarassment to the team.

 

[kerouac9]

yeah, the game where he lead the team to a W against a Division winner leading the offense almost single-handedly to 33 points while being responsible for 364 of 428 total yards. You know... they do play games after the first quarter, right? But hey, if you want to count that as a bad game, well, then ok.



honestly? I don't know. I guess I gotta believe Wiz thinks that maybe he can squeeze a 2007-Cleveland-like year out of Anderson which would probably be good enough to be somewhat respectable and that he truly believes Matt just sucks ass and would be an embarassment to the team.

Yeah, they play games after the first quarter. But with our defense, I'm not sure if it's going to matter, because our defense hasn't shown a lot of testicular fortitude when the offense doesn't get up early. Of course, I'm sure that you were thinking that Derek Anderson was an adequate quarterback when he went pick six-fumble-TD-INT in his first four series against us that year. I mean, he lead the Browns back until a (probably wrong) call in the end zone gave us the win in regulation.

That was also a game at home. Josh McCown lead some comebacks against middling teams at home as well. Let's not pretend that the 10-6 Seattle Seahawks were some incredible winning machine. They went 5-1 in the division and 7-1 at home. They beat a bad Redskins team at home in the first round and got bouced by 22 points(!) by the Packers in the divisional round. Nice team.

A 2006 Cleveland-like year with the Cards would end with us 4-12 and being a laughingstock around the league for people the even remembered that this team existed anymore. That Cleveland Browns team was 10th in the NFL in rushing; Jamal Lewis had 1300 yards rushing. Despite all that, the Celevland Browns ended up 9-7 when Derek Anderson had a super-clutch 4 INT performance against the Cincinnatti Bengals in Week 16.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yeah, they play games after the first quarter. But with our defense, I'm not sure if it's going to matter, because our defense hasn't shown a lot of testicular fortitude when the offense doesn't get up early.

which is what scares the PISS out of me with Matt as well. I think there's NO CHANCE he moves the ball early. Thus, if Wiz is willing to at least give the guy who's shown boom or bust (admittedly MORE bust than boom), I've got no problem with the move.

Of course, I'm sure that you were thinking that Derek Anderson was an adequate quarterback when he went pick six-fumble-TD-INT in his first four series against us that year. I mean, he lead the Browns back until a (probably wrong) call in the end zone gave us the win in regulation.

That was also a game at home. Josh McCown lead some comebacks against middling teams at home as well. Let's not pretend that the 10-6 Seattle Seahawks were some incredible winning machine. They went 5-1 in the division and 7-1 at home. They beat a bad Redskins team at home in the first round and got bouced by 22 points(!) by the Packers in the divisional round. Nice team.

So, wait... now good games shouldn't count because a) they're home games b) and 10 win teams who win divisions and make it to the final 8 are "middling"? Come on man. No one said Seattle was "some incredible winning machine", but they were a good team for years and were a good club that year as well.

A 2007 Cleveland-like year with the Cards would end with us 4-12 and being a laughingstock around the league for people the even remembered that this team existed anymore. That Cleveland Browns team was 10th in the NFL in rushing; Jamal Lewis had 1300 yards rushing. Despite all that, the Celevland Browns ended up 9-7 when Derek Anderson had a super-clutch 4 INT performance against the Cincinnatti Bengals in Week 16.

Cleveland ended up 10-6 and if our QB gave us 27 TDs and 19 picks, it would be the 3rd best QB performance in the last 20 years this team has had. To say that him playing up to his Pro-Bowl alternate year when he led a previously and afterward horrific Browns team to a 10-6 record would make us 4-12, playing a pretty weak schedule is ridiculous K9.

I think Wiz is just looking at Leinart as bust or bust while Anderson gives the slight chance of boom or bust.

You've said your peace while ignoring good wins/games for the guy, making excuses as to why those pointed out good wins aren't good, getting his team's record wrong and putting words into my mouth. That makes me done with the conversation.

 

[BigRedFan]

There are 2 ways of looking at this. One is that Whisenhunt thinks that the best chance of a respectable year/possible playoffs is with Anderson given his 07 year. That was, however, probably his career year in my opinion. No evidence in any yr of a completion % and consistency thats worthy of starting status, not to mention the dramatic drop in performance. I dont think there is anything that Leinart has done or not in the last few weeks that could have gotten him a "demotion" if thats what it was (which remains to be seen). If it was the leadership or intangibles, Whisenhunt should know him well enough so that 2-3 weeks of preseason wouldnt make or break the decision. It would be more that he thinks it is unlikely that Matt will improve enough in the near term to help the Cards stay in the playoff race and/or justify the upcoming contract. So even if Whisenhunt thinks that Matt will be better than Derek in the long term, he wouldnt know soon enough to risk signing him long term, and would rather go with the one he thinks is most likely to succeed in the short term. In that case, it is essentially a lame duck year for Leinart.

Now if this all wrong and Whisenhunt is more intent on starting Leinart and just seeing how Derek fares against the first teamers, or if he favors neither as starter yet, why would he not give Leinart more time against 1st team starters? It would seem silly not to give him the reps he needs with starting day 2 weeks away. Even if Leinart plays in the second half and does well, it is more likely to be against 2nd or 3rd teamers.

So either way, it doesnt seem like it being handled optimally. if Leinart is just a lame duck, it is just a waste of a roster space. if he has a legitimate chance of starting time, he needs more practice in game conditions against 1st teamers. Heck, we'd probably have more of a chance to make the playoffs with Jeff George and then just draft a QB next spring.

 

[Sunburn]

My Dad is from Ohio. Huge Browns fan. Every year he gets the NFL Ticket so he can watch his beloved Browns. Eyewitness report from myself and he, Derek Anderson absolutely blows.

 

[splitsecond]

There are 2 ways of looking at this. One is that Whisenhunt thinks that the best chance of a respectable year/possible playoffs is with Anderson given his 07 year. That was, however, probably his career year in my opinion. No evidence in any yr of a completion % and consistency thats worthy of starting status, not to mention the dramatic drop in performance. I dont think there is anything that Leinart has done or not in the last few weeks that could have gotten him a "demotion" if thats what it was (which remains to be seen). If it was the leadership or intangibles, Whisenhunt should know him well enough so that 2-3 weeks of preseason wouldnt make or break the decision. It would be more that he thinks it is unlikely that Matt will improve enough in the near term to help the Cards stay in the playoff race and/or justify the upcoming contract. So even if Whisenhunt thinks that Matt will be better than Derek in the long term, he wouldnt know soon enough to risk signing him long term, and would rather go with the one he thinks is most likely to succeed in the short term. In that case, it is essentially a lame duck year for Leinart.

Now if this all wrong and Whisenhunt is more intent on starting Leinart and just seeing how Derek fares against the first teamers, or if he favors neither as starter yet, why would he not give Leinart more time against 1st team starters? It would seem silly not to give him the reps he needs with starting day 2 weeks away. Even if Leinart plays in the second half and does well, it is more likely to be against 2nd or 3rd teamers.

So either way, it doesnt seem like it being handled optimally. if Leinart is just a lame duck, it is just a waste of a roster space. if he has a legitimate chance of starting time, he needs more practice in game conditions against 1st teamers. Heck, we'd probably have more of a chance to make the playoffs with Jeff George and then just draft a QB next spring.

Warner had hardly any time in preseason last year, and sucked it up. This point has been repeated ad nauseum around here.

 

[CardLogic]

I personally booked Paris Hilton last night. I certainly wouldn't hesitate at booking you!

:iwin:

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Is "booked" what they're calling it now? To the best of my knowledge, everybody in town has booked Paris at least once.

And as far booking me goes, I'm still happily married, but thanks for the offer anyway.



JTS

Matt did too, better stay away

I just clicked on TMZ. Cocaine. Nice "come hither" look in the booking photo.

(You know she wore a Fitz jersey to our Superbowl. I'd have asked for her opinion on the whole QB thing.)

LOL! Great QB conversation...


Oh, and of course Paris is in Matt's camp! Or is that the other way around:

You must be registered for see images attach