Quarterback "Controversy" in Cleveland

First let us note that there has existed quarterback controversies in Cleveland for years and years. Kelly Holcomb vs. Tim Couch, Charlie Frye vs. Derek Anderson in 2007, Derek Anderson vs. Brady Quinn in 2008 and 2009. National announcers have noted that the Cleveland Browns have changed quarterbacks very, very many times since 1999. Thus, Cleveland fans have almost come to expect it as business-as-usual if the Browns staff can't decide on a quarterback.

In 2007 Derek Anderson became the Browns starter and had good enough of a year to make the NFL Pro Bowl. So, there existed little question that he would start for the Browns in 2008. But, when he didn't fare all too well, he eventually got benched for Brady Quinn. Both players ended their seasons injured, and thus one could get lead to believe that there existed a real question in the mind of new Cleveland coach Eric Mangini in 2009. But, for Mangini there never existed a question. Brady Quinn would play as his quarterback. So why the apparent "controversy"?

Brady Quinn's contract has clauses in it that he would have made about $11 million if he took over 70 percent of the snaps in 2009. So, if somehow it could look like there existed a "controversy" for the position between Quinn and Anderson, there wouldn't exist a huge backlash from the fans for benching Quinn if the Browns' season quickly went sour. So, Mangini helped lead fans into the notion of a quarterback "controversy." He didn't play either Quinn or Anderson in the Browns' final preseason game so no one could tell who would start for the Browns. And he wouldn't announce who would start until almost opening kickoff or someone leaked who would start to the press (which did happen).

If it got made to look that Brady Quinn didn't have all that much talent, the fans woulnd't retailiate for benching him if the Browns' season quickly went sour and Cleveland didn't have a need to win football games this year. And of course, it did go sour. On top of that Quinn played weakly enough that it looked and looks legitimate to bench him. And Quinn might even realize he benched for monetary reasons. After all, even though he has played for 10 quarters and 36 quarters remain, he's already put his house on the market. Quinn knows he won't get enough snaps for his almost $11 million bonus. So, he (rationally) wants to find a less expensive place to live.

Again, Mangini wanted Quinn as his quarterback. But, after losing the first two games of the season, and losing badly to the Baltimore Ravens at halftime in the 3rd game, Mangini got instructed by his bosses to bench Quinn immediately. After all, why would you spend almost $11 million on a quarterback if he's not going to lead your team to a (home) playoff game? With an 0-3 record clearly in sight, even with a strong turnaround in the next few games the Browns almost surely wouldn't do that. Therefore, bench Quinn, play Anderson. We set things up to make this easy, remember?

Mangini may even have liked benching Quinn in a way. For by benching Quinn, Quinn takes on the role of playing the scout's team offense for the defense. Conceivably, or so someone might argue, that could help develop the Browns' defense more by having the better quarterback scout the opposing team's offense for the defense to practice against. So, when Derek Anderson struggled after playing for a bit, Mangini showed no hesitation in saying that he didn't anticipate benching Anderson. "Build" the defense for next year.


Fact or fiction? You decide.