Wallace isnt the better option long or short term i learned that in the baltimore game when he choked under pressure with the 17 yard fumble and then throwing the ball out of bounds the next 2 plays that cost the Browns the game
the fact that the coaches rather put an injured Jake Delhomme in the game for Wallace over Colt Mccoy really says how far away he is from being a backup and getting time if the starter gets hurt let alone being a starter
Yeah, cool. I understand he isn't ready. Do they think he will be at some point? Or do they plan to pursue a QB this coming offseason?
the way he looked in pre-season and that you heard very little about him playing well in practices and camps IMO he wont be ready just too small a frame and not enough arm strength i dont think they take a QB this year (unless its mid rounds) since they have bigger needs (Young DL, WR, Saftey opposite Ward) but in 2012 if there is a draft they will if the Falcons didnt take their guy 2 spots ahead of the browns, colt mccoy would not be in cleveland right now because the GM wanted a DL who atlanta took and they didnt feel they had anybody but McCoy rated high enough to take him at 85
So when Pryor fumbled in the Penn State game did you think he'd still not be the long term option? players learn a lot more from experience and failure than you are trying to make it sound.
Also, I realize that Seneca Wallace isn't a spring chicken by any means, but he's 5 years younger than Delhomme and has for a long time been one of the better backup QBs in the NFL, Delhomme on the other hand is 35 years old and has the worst QB rating in the NFL for the past 2 seasons. So play Seneca Wallace or Colt McCoy, see what you have for the season so you know how high of a priority QB is over the other needs.
what does college have anything to do with the NFL? let alone Pryor? the major diffrence is cleveland has a better QB, the Buckeyes dont and Wallace has had many years of experiance (8 years in the league) and still making mistakes like that is the reason he's never been a starter and doesnt have starting talent
Starting>>>>Career Backup going to Superbowl>>>>>>>>>Having to play WR just to see PT in Seattle Wallace is having the best QB Rating of his career in any year that he threw over 30 Times and you think that will stick? LOL let alone Delhommes QB rating was about 85 2 years ago while Wallace is just at 88 this year so according to you (since you claim delhomme had the lowest rating over the last 2 years which is 100% Wrong by the way since he was 18th in the NFL) Wallace is on pace to be in the bottom 5 this year Not to mention Delhomme's Career rating is almost as good as Wallace this year Facts are the Facts and theres no argument that can be made that Wallace is better on top of it Delhomme has Proven to be better since he's still the #1 QB on the DC when healthy
Delhomme is 35 years old, in 2010 his QB rating is an abysmal 48.2 In 2009 he also had a terrible 59.4 rating.. By the way, I'm not claiming that Seneca Wallace is the savior of the Cleveland Browns, but he's surely been better than Jake Delhomme has, and that's factual. Honestly, you're choosing between 2 turds, but in the end one of them is younger than the other, and has played better than the other as well, so why not let him play some games and see what you have? he could have a pretty good year if he continues on this pace. It also tells you how bad the team thinks your quarterbacks are if the "rumor" about Daunte Culpepper is true. Delhomme and Culpepper are washed up, end of story.
When I originally said the past 2 years I was talking about this year and last... And if you seriously think Delhomme has outplayed Seneca Wallace you need a head check. Also, when did I ever claim I was some sort of football genius? it should be clear as daylight, Wallace is playing better than Delhomme right now, and Delhomme was never a very good quarterback to begin with, but now he is just awful... his only legit good season was 6 years ago.. Also, they picked up Brett Ratliff today off of the Jets practice squad, interesting.