Downtown report, fools

It's this simple: I open a can of OE, I write a Downtown Report.

- The day of the game against the Bengals, the Browns pennant that typically flies below the US flag was absent. I'm not sayin', just sayin'.

- I would be remiss if I didn't include this Twitter link from The Dawgfather. It's not the same as experiencing Robert in person, but it's a taste.

- This season of Browns futility will have many moments that sort of epitomize the club's plight, but so far I'm voting for me falling asleep in the 3rd quarter against the Buffaloes. In a tie game. Browns football: where late and close isn't particularly exciting.

- So maybe the Browns' first win of 2009 wasn't a thrill-ride (though it was a win!), but I'll tell you something from Sunday that was: me destroying the Towpath half-marathon in 1:37:42. Granted, that fast of a time left me marooned at the finish with fully 25 minutes before the beer tent opened, but I'm still pleased with the effort. I didn't fall asleep, anyway.

- Raise your hand if you remember how many games the Indians won this year. The correct answer: 65. You know what's great? Is how I'm going to be totally jacked up for the opener come April-time. Snow somehow completely erases my memory of bad Indians seasons, and that's a good thing.

- As novel as it is to see Shaq and our other new additions (Parker, Moon), I'm not really into Cavaliers pre-season hoops. I think this is, in part, a reflection on the expectations I have for this year's club. How am I supposed to get into pre-season games for a team getting a rather awkward 10:3 to win the NBA? This isn't the Browns, where poor regular seasons make pre-season wins seem almost winnish. Hell, I'm not even sure Cavs regular season games will be attention-grabbing. Of course, once the Browns hit 3-13, I'll change that tune.

- "Black Taco" guy kills me. I don't care how stupid that campaign is. Black taco.

- I cannot overstate the extent to which I want for Braylon Edwards to fall flat on his face tonight in his Jets debut. Football Gods, you've given Browns fans so, so little over the past decade - can we at least see Loser Boy clang Sanchez's first offering off of the blocks of stone attached to his wrists?

- Yeah, I've been giving the Brownies some flack so far in this column, but they did sack it up on defense and have been playing good special teams all year. Positives do not abound, but they've battled two straight teams to draws, and one of them was a genuine good team. Derek Anderson was beyond bad on Sunday; add even a mediocre game to the Browns' rushing attack and we might score double-digits. Yes, I said it: more than 10 points. Interestingly, I didn't see even one shot of Quinn on the sideline on Sunday. I think the NFL has to pay him escalators if they show him above a certain percentage of snaps.

But let's look on the positives: games the Browns are going to win this year. The 0-16 SPECTRE is off their backs, and at 1-4, what can we expect over the next 11 games? (Yes, we have to watch 11 more). Lots of losing, yes, but not unabated 2008 Detroit Lion losing. Let's go into three categories: Maybes, Winnables, and No Fucking Ways. I will now name the latter "Lloyd Christmases" after Jim Carrey's character in Dumb and Dumber. "So you're saying there's a chance." I'm fully cognizant that sometimes teams win Lloyd Christmases, but here I'm going to define it as any game where we're getting two touchdowns. Winnables have us as the favorite or a three-points-or-less dog, and maybes fall inbetween.

Winnables: @KC, Oakland, @ Detroit
Maybes: Jacksonville, San Diago, Green Bay
NFW's: Pittsburgh (2), Baltimore, @Cincinnati, @Chicago

You know how people talk about the strength-of-schedule adjustments the NFL makes and how it supposedly encourages parity? None of those winnables have anything to do with the Browns' last-place 2008 finish. The Buffaloes did. My point is: only two out of 16 games are affected by last year's performance - it's not such a big deal.

Quibble about the categories if you like; we'll go week to week. The Bengals and Bears might be Maybes, but we'll get at least 10 points from each of them. Statistically speaking, here's the most likely outcome:

We take 1-2 of the Winnables.
We take 0-1 of the Maybes
We take 0 of the Lloyd Christmases.

That means we're most likely to win two more games. 3-13 is this team's destiny, probability-wise. 1-15 is technically the basement, but we'll grab one more at least. If we really, really improve and start playing way above our potential, we'll run the table on the Winnables and steal two more from the tougher groups, giving us six wins for the year. That is your best-case scenario. But three looks like the winner. So, Browns fans, look on the bright side: you will, in all probability, see your club win two more football games this season. Yay!
This may not be a good time to point out that the Indianapolis Colts have won 14 straight contests.

- Nothing to do with being Downtown or any Cleveland teams, but I found the Dré Bly situation in San Francisco interesting. Trailing 35-10 in a game his team would lose 45-10 to Atlanta, cornerback Bly picked off a pass and was headed to what seemed like a sure, if unimportant, six. He showboated around his own 35 with a Deion Sanders move and was stripped of the ball by a hustling Falcon about 10 yards later. Really a bush league play by Bly. After the game he was defiant, but the next day word came out that he had approached coach Mike Singletary to apologize and took the podium on Monday and struck what seemed a genuinely recalcitrant tone. Recalcitrant? Is that a real word? Anyway, that was big of Bly, but more importantly: look at how Singletary commands his players' respect. Maybe it was the pants-dropping of a years ago, but that club really seems solid under his guidance. They're not super-talented (everyone, meet Shaun Hill, starting QB) but they can win nine games with fundamentals and make the playoffs. This is what the Browns could aspire to if the players respected Mangini instead of resenting him. Maybe that day will come. OK, maybe that had something to do with Cleveland.

- MNF is on. No, I do not know why the Dolphins are wearing the Hurricanes' jerseys. But I do know this: I want some serious sackage of Chad Henne. As the immortal Figgs would say:

GET EM.

Word choice

"We have all the tools now."
-Jets coach Rex Ryan on the acquisition of Braylon Edwards

Well spoken, sir.

NFL Picks: Week 5

Last week
Andy: 8-6
Figgs: 8-6
Nick: 9-5
Nick's Money Games ($): 3-2
Nick's Teaser: 0-1

Year to date
Andy: 35-27
Figgs: 34-28
Nick: 35-27
Nick's Money Games ($): 7-4
Nick's Teaser: 2-2

Nick from last week: Betting should be a heartless endeavor. I play to win, Francis.
Were you playing to win last season?


Sunday games
1:00 pm kickoffs

BUFFALOES (-6) vs Browns
Andy: I don't care what the line is, I'm taking the Browns every game this year. I can't separate my pick from my fandom during the game, hard as I try. (2 days later) Six is even more than I expected. Good...good.
Figgs: Browns.
Nick: I'll roll the dice on the Browns here. I actually might throw a few bucks on them to win outright.

RAVENS (-9) vs Bengals
Andy: Nick is correct that we don't see this Bengal club the same way. I think the Ravens are a strong team, but Cincy is a fluke play away from 4-0 and I'm not willing to give them 9 points here.
Figgs: Cincy.
Nick: Gimme the Ratbirds. Andy and I see this game very differently. I don't think the Bengals are for real.

GIANTS (-16) vs Raiders
Andy: I think this would have to be over 20 for me to take Oakland, even with Manning out.
Figgs: Giants.
Nick: Giants. How can I pick the Raiders here?

CHIEVES (+9) vs Cowboys
Andy: I'm sticking with my theories that the 'Boys are overrated and that their lines are set too high, and taking the Chieves. Hey, I've already taken the Lions once this season - I like to live dangerously.
Figgs: Cowboys.
Nick: Cowboys. The Chiefs won't win this game, and I think Dallas can beat them by double digits.

PANTHERS (-3.5) vs Redskins
Andy: This game would have looked a lot more interesting in the pre-season. Unlike Nick, I wouldn't bet this one with a 10-foot pole. Panthers, I suppose.
Figgs: Panthers.
Nick: Panthers. I'd bet this one, but can you really put money behind Jake Delhomme?

RAMS (+9.5) vs Vikings
Andy: Vikes. I'd bet my house on that line Nick got, and I still love it less than 10. A 4-0 dome team against the worst team in the league and I don't even give double-digits? Wow.
Figgs: Vikings.
Nick: Vikings. I bet this game last week as a prospective line at -7.5. Freaking layup. ($)

EAGLES (-14.5) vs Bucs
Andy: I guessed this one at -9, so this is too many points for me. As reluctant as I am to take Tuberculosis, I'm doing so.
Figgs: Bucs.
Nick: Bucs. More than two touchdowns? I think the Bucs might have enough life to beat the spread here.

LIONS (+10.5) vs Steelers
Andy: Steelers. I thought this would be -13. This isn't quite the gift that Minnesota-St Louis is, but it looks pretty safe.
Figgs: Steelers.
Nick: Unfortunately, Pittsburgh. My second favorite game of the week. ($)

4:00 pm kickoffs

49ERS (-2.5) vs Falcons
Andy: I would always take the home team in a matchup of these clubs. Hence, I choose San Fiasco, particularly since I thought I'd have to give more than a FG.
Figgs: Falcons.
Nick: I wouldn't be surprised to see Atlanta win here, but they haven't beaten anyone good yet. Niners.

CARDS (-5.5) vs Texans
Andy: Ugly, ugly line. Houston is the most mediocre franchise there is; I joked last year that their mission statement is "8-8." They're 2-2 now with a microscopic +2 point differential. From now on, I'm picking them to lose when they're over .500 and win when they're below. That doesn't help this week, but Nick's logic is sound here, so I'll take the Cards.
Figgs: Texans.
Nick: Cards. Zona's good at home, Houston blows on the road. Book it.

BRONCOS (+3) vs Pats
Andy: One of the best games on the slate here. I'll take that field goal and rock the Broncos, who have the AFC's best point differential (+53). The Saints lead the NFL at +78, and they haven't even gotten a chance to hang 56 points on the Brownies.
Figgs: Pats.
Nick: I bet the Patriots, largely to have an interest in the later games (rookie mistake) and instantly regretted it. I like the pick, just shouldn't have bet on it. ($)

SEAHAWKS (+3) vs Jags
Andy: 'Hawks. Last week, I felt stupid for picking them the second that Indy game started. This week, they're at home and I don't buy what Jacksonville's selling.
Figgs: Jags.
Nick: Jags, though I'm not sure about Hasselbeck's status.

8:20 pm kickoffs

TITANS (+3.5) vs Colts
Andy: These teams have killed me this year, for opposite reasons. I waffled here; the die was cast by Bill Simmons' comment that it's "time to stop giving [the Titans] the benefit of the doubt." Indeed.
Figgs: Colts.
Nick: Colts. I'm jumping off the Titans bandwagon. If I get burned, it's going to be by picking against them. Also, I keep expecting the Colts to take a precipitous dive, and it never seems to happen. I don't know if I've ever seen Peyton Manning playing this well. ($)


Monday Night Game
8:30 pm kickoff

DOLPHINS (+1) vs Jets
Andy: The Jets learned their lessons in the Superdome last week. Look for them to roll over the Dolphins in a bounce-back. Plus, I love Figgs' policy of not taking the Fish as long as Henne is their QB, especially considering that Jake Long is his left tackle.
Figgs: Jets.
Nick: Jets. I was really surprised you don't have to give more than a point to pick New York. I put some coin on this one late. I'm clearly getting cocky, but I'm curious to see if I can keep my Monday night streak going, and I also don't like ending the week at .500 betting. Let's win or lose. ($)

Nick's Teaser: Ravens (-2.5) and Cowboys (-3)

MLB Playoff Preview

Psych! I'm not going to preview the MLB playoffs as long as the qualifying format remains as unfair as it currently is. As Rob Neyer writes, teams with big dollars are doing great this year, and the less-fortunate financial teams are tired of it, writes Tom Van Riper.

I think it sucks, too. Look at the AL qualifiers: Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Twins. With the exception of AL Central Roulette, it's the same fucking teams every year. NL too - Phillies, Dodgers, and whoever wins the Cardinal/Cub sweepstakes. The teams that can spend the most make the playoffs, with a few exceptions here and there for fun. Execs talk about Moneyball and how small-market teams can make it, and occasionally they can with well-above-average management, but the overwhelming number of playoff spaces go to the big spenders. As good as everyone likes to feel about a Tampa Bay or Minnesota crashing the party, the fact that it's so celebrated should give you a clue about how statistically unlikely it is to happen.

How is this OK with everyone? This sport loses a lot of its legitimacy because of the unfairness of its playoff structure, and the powers in charge don't seem to care. As long as they're making money, this will continue to be the case. What's interesting is how much ink the steroid scandals of the past get, as compared to the game's competitive imbalance. Fans don't give a fuck about steroids. That's yesterday's news. Don't. Care. Sorry, Mark Fainaru-Wada, it's over. Guys from every team used them, home runs were hit, records were inflated. Got it. Now we care about our teams having a chance to win. That's what's important.

For fun, here are rankings of MLB's 30 teams by payroll. Look who's in the postseason: yankees (1st), red socks (4th), phillies (7th), dodgers (9th), angels (6th), tigers (5th), cardinals (13th). The Rockies (18th) and Twins (24th) were the only small-market teams in the running - everyone else has the loot. The Indians, for the record, were 15th, despite Cleveland's small market.

The Twins are my obvious favorite in the AL. I'm totally indifferent to the NL - Rockies, I suppose. Now if you'll excuse me, I have football to watch.

Buckeyes Continue Roll, Pound Indiana

Ohio St picked up right where they left off the past two weeks with a 33-14 defeat of Indiana in Bloomington. This game was dominated from start to finish by OSU, and I have some stats to prove it. The Bucks picked up 29 first downs, while Indiana could only muster 11. They held the ball for over 34 minutes, compared to Indiana's 25. On their six first half possessions, Ohio St was in position to score all six times, converting on four. Since the heartbreaker to SC, the Buckeyes have outscored their last three opponents 111-14.


Game Recap

Brandon Saine, who got his first start in place of the injured Dan Herron, had a big run on the game's first possession which led to an Aaron Pettrey 46 yard field goal. The defense forced a three-and-out and Saine had a couple more big runs on the next drive. This time Ohio St was able to get into the end zone when Terrelle Pryor hit Duron Carter for the TD. Judging by the excellent control and concentration Carter showed to make that catch (pictured above), that will certainly be the first of very many touchdowns by the true freshman. Another good drive for OSU followed another three-and-out for the Hoosiers. This time, however, Pettrey was no good from 35 yards.

Working with a short field, Indiana had their first good drive of the game to start the second quarter and capped it off with a touchdown pass to cut the lead to 10-7. After a good kick return on a reverse, Ohio St answered quickly with a Pryor to DeVier Posey TD toss. Pryor led two more good drives to close out the half but one was stalled after another Pettrey miss, this one from 29. I don't understand how he can be so money from 40-60 but can't make a chip shot. TP wasn't about to let Pettrey try again and hooked up with freshman backup fullback Zach Boren for a score late in the half. Ohio St's D did the rest, not allowing Indiana to go anywhere, and went into the break up 24-7.

With the game already out of reach, the second half was pretty boring. The only scoring in the third quarter came when OSU blocked a punt and Robert Rose tackled the punter in the end zone for a safety. Pryor decided his legs weren't getting enough work and ran one in for a score to begin the final frame, putting OSU up 33-7. Even with a big lead, Tressel continued to put the ball in the air, and Terrelle finally made a mistake in the final minutes by forcing a pass into the end zone, which was picked off. Indiana scored a garbage touchdown on the game's last play to make the final 33-14, Bucks.


Game Notes

Game Ball
Although Pryor's numbers (16/27, 159 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 63 rushing yards and another touchdown) may have been good enough for this week's honor, I gotta give it to my boy Brandon Saine. I've been screaming for this guy to get the ball for the past two years, and it only took a sprained ankle from Herron for it to happen. Saine got the ball 19 times and picked up a career-high 132 yards, good enough for seven yards per touch. I still like Boom, and he is a good change of pace from Saine, but even if Herron returns next week (as expected) I think Saine should get the bulk of the carries.
Game Balls to date: Pryor (2), Defense (1), Saine (1)

On the Road Again
With this victory over Indiana, Ohio St has won a school record 16 straight conference road games. They will look to tie michigan's Big Ten record of 17 in two weeks when they travel to West Lafayette to take on a bad Purdue club.

The Option's Back!
Ohio St decided to run the option several times in this game, and as it has been all year, was very successful. When the Buckeyes ran this at the beginning of the year, it was Saine doing most of the work. Indiana seemed to be going more after him and letting Pryor do what he wanted. Not a good decision. TP took several option keepers and just ran all over the Hoosiers. He has the best stiff-arm I have ever seen from a QB, maybe anyone at this level. He simply pushes defenders down with his one free arm then continues to run. Let's hope this play sticks around this time!

Take It Away Now
With Anderson Russell's fumble recovery and interceptions by Russell and Todd Dennlinger, Ohio St now has 13 takeaways in their first five games. Eight different players have an interception. These guys on D just always seem to be where the ball is. Speaking of Russell, he's seen a decrease in playing time since his opening day woes against Navy, but filled in for suspended Kurt Coleman last week and responded in a big way. Sophomore Jermale Hines has looked very good with his increase in playing time, giving this team lots of depth at safety.

Up Next: vs. Wisconsin, 3:30, ABC
Wisconsin enters the Horseshoe with a 5-0 record, but still remains unranked due to a weak schedule. Badger RB John Clay is a beast (582 yards and 7 touchdowns thus far in '09) and will certainly be the focus of the Ohio St defense. This will be the toughest test for OSU since the Trojans, but I'm not completely sold on Wisconsin. Plus, I'll be in attendance and I'll be bringing my 5-0 record against the Big Ten with me.
Prediction: Ohio St 29 Wisconsin 6

GET EM

(AP Photo/Darron Cummings)

Hey Vikings fans...

If you're wearing a Brett Favre jersey, you suck. Seriously, that's the equivalent of Ben Roethlisberger playing for the Browns in the twilight of his career, and I wouldn't buy that ass clown's jersey if someone wedged a pistol against my temple.

Plus, it's a terrible investment - Favre is probably gone in a year. You guys have the best running back on the planet. Wear number 28!

News roundup

I was interested to read three stories on the PD site after the Browns' loss to the Bengals yesterday, only one of which has anything to do with the game.

First up is John "Big Dawg" Thompson, who has settled his lawsuit with EA for using his likeness in Madden. He was demanding at least $25 000 and (not or) for them not to use his image anymore. Whatever, dude. Wouldn't you want to be in Madden? Why would this upset you to the point where you tried to sue EA? I'd consider it a tribute. I'll never cease to be amazed by how much people like money.

Next is Braylon Edwards assaulting a guy at 2:30 am last night. Apparently it has something to do with Braylon not liking LeBron, who I guess the victim knew or something. I dunno, I don't understand crazy pro athlete behavior. But, based on everything we've seen and heard from Braylon in his career thus far, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that he punched this guy for no good reason? Braylon, you're my least favorite Brown ever - no need to keep trying.

Finally, a game-related story, about Carson Palmer lobbying coach Marvin Lewis to go for it on 4th and 11 late in overtime. The Bengals converted and went on to win, of course, but if this anecdote is true, then Bengal fans should be very concerned about Marvin Lewis' decision-making. The Bengals had the ball on the Browns' 41. It was 4th and 11. There was 1:04 remaining in overtime. And Lewis was leaning towards punting.

Now, I'll give him credit for thinking twice and ultimately making the right call, but seriously, Marvin? You were going to punt? That's insane. Punting there makes essentially only one outcome possible: a tie. The Browns, ineffective at moving the ball and out of timeouts (I think), weren't going to score in a minute from deep in their own end, and by punting, neither were the Bengals. By going for it, you leave open a slight chance to take a loss, a significant chance to win (as they did), and the bulk of the probability on a tie.

I cannot see how you could play for a tie in that situation. You absolutely 100% have to play for the win. The Bengals still have 3 games with Baltimore and Pittsburgh remaining, and they need every win they can get, not a tie against the Browns. For the sake of the integrity of the NFL, I'm glad they went for it.

In fact, thinking about my previous sentence, it doesn't matter what division you're in or what your record is: you play for the tie there. Sure, there are exceptions, like if it's the last game of the year and a tie gets you in the playoffs and you don't want to risk a loss or something. But 99% of the time, independent of context, go for it there and try to get a W.

I think most coaches' decisions should be made independent of context, despite what many announcers will tell you. Rich Gannon (who actually made a number of interesting points through the game) yesterday said that Mangini could take more chances, for example going for 4th downs, because the Browns have a bad record and "have nothing to lose." That's rubbish. You make the in-game decision that gives your team the best chance to win, every time, regardless of your record. Coaches of 0-4 clubs should make the same choices as coaches of 4-0 teams. I don't understand why there's this perceived difference based on team record, when the coach has exactly the same objective in both situation.

The No-Quinn Scenario

Let's get one thing straight: the Brady Quinn era is over. You could argue that it never really began, but now it looks like the former first-round pick is never going to get a fair shake in Cleveland.

Let's also all admit that Derek Anderson probably gives the Browns a marginally better chance to win at this point. Unfortunately, as good as Anderson looks from time to time, eventually his inner Hyde will burst through, and when the pressure is on we'll witness the meltdown. Opposing teams figured out how to stop Anderson during the second half of 2007, and DA never was able to adjust - it's as simple as that.

Derek Anderson isn't light years ahead of Brady Quinn, and while Anderson is largely a known quantity, Quinn is not. Most NFL teams realize that patience is necessary when developing a quarterback. If anything, teams sometimes stick with first-round quarterbacks for too long simply due to the switching costs associated with unloading a top pick and hitching your wagon to another.

Brady Quinn is in his third season, and unless Derek Anderson gets hurt or spontaneously combusts, Quinn will have six professional starts to his credit at the end of the year. Included in those six starts are two games during which Quinn was playing with a broken finger (2008 at Buffalo, Houston).

During the 2003-2007 NFL drafts (a 5-year span) there were 16 quarterbacks selected in the first round, including Quinn. Take a look at the playing time each signal caller received during his first three seasons:

2007 Draft
1st overall - JaMarcus Russell - 19 starts
22nd overall - Brady Quinn - 6 starts

The first overall pick, JaMarcus Russell, was the only passer other than Quinn chosen in the first round of the 2007 draft. Just like Quinn, this is Russell's third season, and if he doesn't get injured he will have 32 starts under his belt when this season is over. As bad as Quinn has been, Russell has been much worse in Oakland, and it's a little amusing to think that Russell could have more than five times Quinn's starting experience by the end of the season.

2006 Draft
3rd overall - Vince Young - 29 starts
10th overall - Matt Leinart - 16 starts
11th overall - Jay Cutler - 37 starts

Jay Cutler certainly looks like the star in this group, and he's the only guy who’s currently starting. Vince Young is more of an athlete than a quarterback, and was eventually lifted for the more consistent Kerry Collins. Matt Leinart was pretty mediocre as the starter and was replaced by the ageless Kurt Warner, who has somehow managed to recapture his glory days, and has forced us to endure gratuitous shots of his wife in the stands.

2005 Draft
1st overall - Alex Smith - 30 starts
24th overall - Aaron Rodgers - 0 starts
25th overall - Jason Campbell - 36 starts

After his strange ascension up draft boards during the spring of '05, Alex Smith looks like a total bust. Seriously, this guy is Ryan Leaf minus the media outbursts. Jason Campbell has been a pretty average starter despite never having a true number one receiver. The wild card of this group is Aaron Rodgers, who sat for three years behind Brett Favre, but had practically no learning curve when he became the starter last season. Rodgers looks like one of the NFL's elite quarterbacks after less than two seasons under center, and he looks destined to be the star of this group.

2004 Draft
1st overall - Eli Manning - 39 starts
4th overall - Phillip Rivers - 16 starts
11th overall - Ben Roethlisberger - 40 starts
22nd overall - J.P. Losman

This quarterback class has been a smashing success, as the top three guys have all led their respective teams at least as far as the conference championship game. Eli Manning has a Super Bowl ring, and regrettably, Ben Roethlisberger has a pair of his own. Roethlisberger is also the proud owner of the NFL’s fattest face. Not unlike Rodgers, Rivers had to sit behind a veteran quarterback for a couple of seasons, and that probably made his transition to the starting job much more seamless. J.P. Losman had some success, but was never able to find any consistency in Buffalo. Losman is currently trying his hand in the UFL. (Is it just me, or did it always seem like a bad idea to have quarterback whose name was pronounced “Loss – man?”)

2003 Draft
1st overall - Carson Palmer - 29 starts
7th overall - Byron Leftwich - 38 starts
19th overall - Kyle Boller - 34 starts
22nd overall - Rex Grossman - 7 starts

When the Bengals exploded onto the scene to win the AFC North in 2005, Carson Palmer looked like he was ready to the take the mantle of "top quarterback" away from Peyton Manning in the near future. Freak injuries and a lousy offensive line have stunted Palmer's progression, and although he's still just 29, Palmer may never be considered a truly elite quarterback. Still, Palmer's definitely an above average passer, and there are plenty of teams that would gladly swap their quarterback for Palmer.

Although Byron Leftwich and Rex Grossman both had some success, they'd probably both be graded as failures. Grossman was dragged to the Super Bowl by the solid 2006 Bears. Injury problems limited Grossman to just seven starts in his first three seasons. Kyle Boller was never able to make the leap in Baltimore, and we can consider him a fizzle, too. Boller is currently backing up Marc Bulger in St. Louis. Your career is not going well if you’re backing up Marc Bulger.


When you consider those stats, it's clear that Brady Quinn hasn't been given much of an opportunity to grow. Guys like Rex Grossman and Kyle Boller, who were never good, were given a much longer leash than Quinn ever was. Whether it was his initial holdout, Anderson's short-lived success, Quinn's finger injury, or Mangini's indecisiveness, circumstances have prevented Brady Quinn from seeing the field with any consistency.

The Anderson/Quinn angle has been examined ad nauseum, so let's concentrate on the Mangini factor. Given the time Mangini invested in grading these quarterbacks, it strikes me as a little odd that it took him less than 10 quarters to make this switch. Quinn obviously was not playing good football, but he didn't look like a basket case, either.

Plus, Mangini had alluded to the fact that he would basically stick it out with the winner of the quarterback derby, regardless of who that ultimately was. If we'd reached the bye week and Quinn hadn't shown any signs of improvement, then I could see considering a switch, but why now? Something doesn't quite add up.

As a matter of fact, "adding up" might be exactly what's going to keep Brady Quinn marooned on the bench. Quinn has escalators in his contract that are triggered if he takes a certain percentage of this year's snaps.

If Quinn takes 70 percent or more snaps this season, escalators kick in that add $5 million to his contract next season, and $5.9 million in 2011. Quinn can also earn an additional $1.3 million if he takes 45 percent of this year's snaps, although that number is relatively insignificant when measured against the NFL's salary cap of approximately $129 million.

So if Mangini's seen enough to think that Quinn isn't his answer at quarterback, and evidently he has, then his logic must be that sitting Quinn will at least save the team some cash over the next few seasons. There is certainly merit to that, but we also know that Derek Anderson isn't the long-term solution, either. That means that the Browns will likely look to the draft for a quarterback, and they will almost certainly be in the top five next April.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the Browns are the worst team in football this season, and that they take a quarterback first overall. This year's number one pick, Matt Stafford, inked a six-year deal that could be worth up to $78 million with incentives, and includes $41.7 million guaranteed. If next year's top pick is a quarterback, he will likely be paid 5-10 percent more.

Weigh $13-15 million a year (about $7 million of which will be guaranteed) against Quinn's $11 million over two years and obviously, Quinn's bonus money seems trivial. Of course, there's certainly the possibility that Quinn would fail, but if you glance over that list of 2003-2007's first round quarterbacks, you see that their success rate is only around 50 percent. So Mangini needs to decide whether to roll the dice with Quinn and pay his far smaller bonuses ($11 million still isn't exactly peanuts), or start over with a number one quarterback whose success will probably determine whether or not Mangini sticks in Cleveland.

At least from where I'm sitting, it makes sense to give Quinn his shot. Not only could that save Mangini from making a leap of faith with another young quarterback, but it would allow him to draft a defensive play maker in the mold of an Ed Reed or a Troy Polamalu that this team so sorely lacks. Watch these clips of Eric Berry and Taylor Mays. Commence salivating.

Eric Mangini's problem is that he’s been just as indecisive with Brady Quinn as Phil Savage was. Whereas Savage couldn't decide between Quinn and Anderson, Mangini couldn't decide between Quinn and Mark Sanchez.

Supposedly Mangini was very impressed with Sanchez and spent several hours diagramming plays with him. But instead of pulling the trigger on Sanchez at number five, which would have been an unpopular move, Mangini traded down for poor value. At the time I was fine with that. After all, there wasn't anyone at number five who I was wild about paying big money, but that also came with the assumption that trading down was tantamount to committing to Quinn.

Most of us assumed that the quarterback competition was a sham to pump up Derek Anderson's trade value and/or to maintain Anderson's delicate psyche. There was certainly enough tape to show that Derek Anderson was a good backup, but not a long-term starting solution. As it turns out, the competition was anything but a sham, and Mangini had these two quarterbacks rated almost dead even before, during, and after training camp.

The fact that Mangini couldn't declare Quinn the starter with certainty before camp should have told him all he needed to know. If he wasn't convinced that Brady Quinn was superior to Derek Anderson, then he should have looked in another direction, and it probably should have led him to drafting Sanchez.

I don't mean to suggest that Mark Sanchez would be experiencing the same success in Cleveland that he's had in New York, because there's clearly a huge disparity in talent between those rosters. In fact, it would have made sense to unload Quinn for a second or third round pick, install Anderson as the starter, and stash Sanchez on the bench for a season. The problem is that Mangini didn't use a high pick on a quarterback when he had the chance, and he also missed a huge opportunity to start the developmental clock on a quarterback during a throwaway season.

Now Mangini is faced with his own version of the Kobayashi Maru test, as he's forced to choose between playing and paying Quinn even if he has a slim chance of succeeding, or waiting until the 2010 draft to roll the dice on one of the top quarterbacks. It appears that Mangini has chosen the latter of the two options. He can't afford to be wrong. Frankly, hundreds of thousands of livers throughout northeast Ohio can’t afford for him to be wrong, either.

NFL Picks: Week 4

Last week
Andy: 9-7
Figgs: 9-7
Nick: 9-7
Nick's money games ($): 4-0 (!!!!)
Nick's teaser: 1-0
Browns blood is on your hands, Nick, for picking the Ravens. Yeah, you tied me, but I have some dignity. I mean, not a whole lot, but some.
Nick: Betting should be a heartless endeavor. I play to win, Francis.

Year to date
Andy: 27-21
Figgs: 26-22
Nick: 26-22
Nick's money games ($): 4-2
Nick's teaser: 2-1

Sunday games
1:00 pm kickoffs

BROWNS (+5.5) vs Bengals
Andy: Alright, here's the deal. I like to think of myself as a clear-thinking, rational person in most matters. I am a scientist, after all. I try to make judgments and assessments based on facts and probabilities, rather than "gut feel," which I think is a stupid way to make decisions. One area where I relax this policy is: sports. I know my teams suck, but I support them fully anyway and delude myself each week into thinking that the Browns will compete. To that end, with I think just one exception, I've taken the Browns week in and week out here in our NFL picks as a token of loyalty, even in cases (last week jumps out at me) where I didn't think they had any chance at all. Well, you know what? Logic is back, and it tells me that I really don't owe the Browns anything at this point. I'll keep watching and backing the club, but I'll be damned if I'm going to drop another game to Nick in the standings just out of some aimless principle. I wouldn't take the Browns getting anything less than a touchdown if I were a fan of any other team, and I'm not going to here either. Can you imagine someone walking into a sports book, laying down money, and saying, "I want the Browns at +5.5"? No, you can't. As I said last week: fuck it, Bengals.
Figgs: Hey, you're dropping games to me too, not just Nick. Cinncy.
Nick: Andy's Wordy McWordsmith this week. Bengals. ($)

BEARS (-10) vs Lions
Andy: The Onion: "Lions Victory Celebration Ultimately Plunges Fans Into Deeper Depression." I'll take the Bears.
Figgs: Bears. No way the Lions win two in a row.
Nick: It will be tough for the Lions to keep from having a letdown this week. Bears.

COLTS (-10.5) vs Seahawks
Andy: Wow, that's a lot of points, even with Seneca Wallace involved. I'll take Seattle, regretfully.
Figgs: That is a lot of points, but c'mon, Seneca Wallace? Indy.
Nick: Tough one for me to pick. I'll go She-hawks.

CHIEVES (+9) vs Giants
Andy: G-men. Give me one reason not to.
Figgs: Giants.
Nick: Love the Giants here. Bad weather's the only way KC has a chance to beat the spread. ($)

REDSKINS (-7.5) vs Buccaneers
Andy: I'll go with Tampa Bay. I can't give more than a TD to back a team that just lost to Detroit.
Figgs: Bucs. Redskins win but it'll be closer than a touchdown.
Nick: I'll go Skins. Bucs have a first year QB and this is an absolute must-win for Washington.

JAGS (+3) vs Titans
Andy: Tennessee. Come on, they have to win one here, right?
Figgs: Titans. They can't go 0-4.
Nick: Titans, possibly big. I'm banking on the Titans not going 0-4, and the Jaguars not being good enough to play well twice in a row. ($)

TEXANS (-9) vs Raiders
Andy: The Onion again: "JaMarcus Russell Knows He's Supposed To Do Something With Brown Ball In Hand." This guy is simply amazing. Texans.
Figgs: Texans.
Nick: Kind of like the Bucs, it's tough for me to pick the Raiders against a decent team when I don't have to give double-digits. Completing 40% of his passes is a good day for JaMarcus Russell.

PATRIOTS (-1.5) vs Ravens
Andy: The Onion's "What do you think?" regarding the Patriots' loss to the Jets: "Tom Brady needs to start stepping into his throws or else he's never going to suffer another painful, crippling injury." Meanwhile, I guessed this line at +3. Ravens.
Figgs: Pats let me down each week, so I went against them last week and got burned again. That being said, I hate Baltimore. Pats.
Nick: Gotta love the Ratbirds here. They're my early AFC Super Bowl pick.

4:00 pm kickoffs
SAINTS (-7) vs Jets
Andy: Ladies and Gentlemen, The Onion: "Drew Brees Saving Up Arm Strength For One Big 3,000 Yard Pass." Sanchez and the Jets aren't ready for this. Saints.
Figgs: Jets.
Nick: The Jets have a good defense, but I don't think that their offense can keep up with New Orleans'.

DOLPHINS (+1.5) vs Bills
Andy: Who's QB'ing the Fish now? Anyone? I'll take the Buffaloes.
Figgs: I will not pick Miami for the rest of the year as long as Henne is still starting. Bills.
Nick: Since when was Chad Pennington playing like Peyton Manning? Miami gets off the schnide this week.

BRONCOS (+3) vs Cowboys
Andy: It's not that the Cowboys are overrated, it's that they have such a wide fan base that Dallas lines have to be set artificially favorable to get equal action on both sides. That's my guess anyway. My other guess is that the Broncos win this game.
Figgs: The Broncos aren't for real. Dallas.
Nick: This like is absurd, and most Dallas lines are a little bit inflated as Andy surmised. "WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO HOME, DALLAS? YOU CAN'T BEAT DENVER!"

49ERS (-9.5) vs Rams
Andy: San Francisco should be 3-0. That's all there is to it. They know it, they're going to come out aggressive and mean, they're at home, and the Rams suck. San Fran.
Figgs: Niners.
Nick: I also like San Francisco here. Apparently Mike Singletary's a pretty good coach. This baby moved from 10 to 9.5 on my site, and that was enough for me. ($)


8:20 pm kickoff
STEELERS (-6.5) vs Chargers
Andy: Too many points, even as not sold as I am on San Diago in general. If Polamalu was in, what would this be, 8? 9? How many safeties move a line like that guy?
Figgs: Chargers.
Nick: If it's under a TD, I usually pick the team that I think will win the game. This is almost a must-win for Pittsburgh, and I'm going to pick them here.


Monday Night Game
8:30 pm kickoff

VIKINGS (-3.5) vs Packers
Andy: The Onion, on the keys to the game for the Vikings: "Use 2-pronged rushing attack of Adrian Peterson and Adrian Peterson wearing Chester Taylor's jersey." Vikes.
Figgs: I'd take the home team either way. Vikes.
Nick: Although I'd like to pull for Green Bay here, financial obligations have me rooting for the Vikes. ($)

Nick's Teaser: Parlay the Bengals (-6) with the Giants (-9) and the Titans (-3). Pays almost 6-1 if I hit it.

Crabgreed

I called out San Francisco 49er holdout in last week's NFL picks, but I'm not done yet with Michael Crabtree. It's just so incredibly greedy and stupid, and I can't just let it go. Plus, writing about the Browns and Indians isn't super-fun right now. AND, I'm working on a 40, and those get me riled up.

For source material, how about this article from espn.com?

The most relevant thing to me here is the fact that: holdouts lose in the end. It always ends up hurting their career, which impacts their long-term finances. Even if they get their demands in the first year, things won't pan out for them in the end. It's a sucker's bet. Here on the Browns we've got our own regrettable holdout: Brady Quinn. What if he'd reported on time in 2007 and won the starting job in 2007? We certainly wouldn't have this debacle we have now. We'd have a different debacle, because this is the Cleveland Browns, but that isn't the point.

The most incredible thing about the story is the ego it takes to adopt such a position. I can only imagine what it's like to be a veteran and have some guy who's never even played a down demand to be one of the highest-paid players on the club. It's double-ego with Crabtree: his whole position is that he should be paid top-5 money even though he was drafted, I forget, not top 5. Just stop it. Get paid millions to play and like it! I didn't hold out at GrafTech, and they're not paying me millions. Yet.

This piece has a number of fun quotes, which I always enjoy:

[Crabtree's] circle consists of at least three men over the age of 40: former NFL superstar Deion Sanders, Texas state Sen. Royce West and Crabtree's cousin, bail bondsman David Wells.
Deion, a guy named "Royce," and a bail bondsman. How can this not end well?

[Agent Eugene] Parker no doubt knows about the probability that rookies who hold out are far more likely to get injured and have inconsequential first seasons.
And doesn't seem to care. These things happen when agents represent their own interests instead of their clients'. Have you ever read about how real estate agents sell their own houses for much more than they sell clients' houses? That has nothing to do with anything.

Former KC Chiefs GM Carl Peterson: I don't think there's any way he'll ever recover the experience he's losing this year in the National Football League, and I don't think he'll ever recover the financial loss.
I want top-5 money! Waah!

Tom Cousineau, who himself held out: Who out there, all things being equal, would prefer to work for less money than more money? Who makes that choice?
It's not all money, Greedo. There's location, a chance to build a career, job satisfaction, and many other things. This rhetorical simplification doesn't add anything to this discussion. Plus: isn't that what Crabtree is doing, making less money? I don't know the exact details of the offer on the table, but I'm assuming it's greater than zero.

But as one final kicker, he's pulling in a bit more than zero: Crabtree won't be hurting for money any time soon. He has endorsement deals with Subway, EA Sports and Nike Jordan Brand sneakers. Trading cards could possibly net him another six figures.
Wow, if I was an exec with Subway, EA, or Nike, that would absolutely drive me bonkers. We're paying this guy? I'd dump him immediately. This would infuriate me. It already does, and I'm not an exec with any of those companies. I'm not an executive at all, in fact. I'm the executive editor of this blog. And I will not offer Michael Crabtree anything to endorse the site.