PDA

View Full Version : Derek Anderson to start for Cleveland in '08


kastofsna
01-09-2008, 03:14 PM
Per Rotoworld:

Browns GM Phil Savage said Wednesday morning that Derek Anderson will be the team's starting quarterback in 2008.

Anderson, a Pro Bowl alternate, threw 29 touchdowns and 19 interceptions in his first year as a starter. Savage feels Anderson deserves "a chance to go into the batter's box and swing for the fences next year. Our expectation is that he'll hit some home runs for us." Savage says a long-term contract is a possibility for Anderson and indicated that he's off the market in trade talks. Brady Quinn will open the season as a backup. Jan. 9 - 1:34 pm et
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer

---

no more rumors to Miami, thank god.

Lucky
01-09-2008, 03:27 PM
Anderson still has to be signed to a contract. And I doubt that the Browns will be willing to give him a $20 million bonus. So the question is, will the Browns tender Anderson a RFA contract (with 1st & 3rd round compensation). Or will they franchise him (with 2 1st round picks as compensation). If given the RFA is offered, someone will snap him up (Panthers, Bears, Vikings?) for the 1st & 3rd. If they franchise tag Anderson, the Browns will have to cough up over $10 million just for one season. This isn't over.

austintexanite
01-09-2008, 03:33 PM
Smart move, give him one more year and see if it was a fluke or the real deal. I'm not a fan of Quinn, but this can only help him as he sits and learns the game more until he is ready to takeover.

HOU-TEX
01-09-2008, 03:37 PM
It's kind of odd anointing someone as a definite starter two weeks into the off-season. :thinking:

ATX
01-09-2008, 03:42 PM
Atleast he has earned it. Cleveland would be foolish to just let him go after the year he had.

infantrycak
01-09-2008, 04:03 PM
Or will they franchise him (with 2 1st round picks as compensation).

You can't franchise a RFA, only an URFA.

Franchise Player: Each club may designate one player who would otherwise be an Unrestricted Free Agent as a Franchise Player.

Link (http://www.nflpa.com/CBA/free_agency_System_explained.aspx)

ATX
01-09-2008, 04:06 PM
Anderson still has to be signed to a contract. And I doubt that the Browns will be willing to give him a $20 million bonus. So the question is, will the Browns tender Anderson a RFA contract (with 1st & 3rd round compensation). Or will they franchise him (with 2 1st round picks as compensation). If given the RFA is offered, someone will snap him up (Panthers, Bears, Vikings?) for the 1st & 3rd. If they franchise tag Anderson, the Browns will have to cough up over $10 million just for one season. This isn't over.

You really think a team would give up a 1st and 3rd for Anderson? I guess they could do the Matt Schaub scenario though.

adam
01-09-2008, 04:10 PM
To be honest, I think it was a fluke. I don't think he'll be there after next season, he has plenty of flaws to be exposed over the course of this next season.

Lucky
01-09-2008, 04:14 PM
You really think a team would give up a 1st and 3rd for Anderson? I guess they could do the Matt Schaub scenario though.
The Texans gave up (2) 2nd rounders for a guy who had never started. If the Bears can't get McNabb in a trade, they would think a 1st & a 3rd is a bargain for a guy who threw 29 TDs last season.

ATX
01-09-2008, 04:17 PM
The Texans gave up (2) 2nd rounders for a guy who had never started. If the Bears can't get McNabb in a trade, they would think a 1st & a 3rd is a bargain for a guy who threw 29 TDs last season.

Maybe, but they have a decent draft position this year. Plus the Texans were way more desperate for a QB, but who knows.......the Bears could be alot better with a halfway decent QB.

adam
01-09-2008, 04:19 PM
Maybe, but they have a decent draft position this year. Plus the Texans were way more desperate for a QB, but who knows.......the Bears could be alot better with a halfway decent QB.

I don't know about that. When the Texans fired him (he's certainly had a drop off since then), Carr wasn't nearly as bad as either Grossman or Orton. Still pretty bad though.

ATX
01-09-2008, 04:21 PM
I don't know about that. When the Texans fired him (he's certainly had a drop off since then), Carr wasn't nearly as bad as either Grossman or Orton. Still pretty bad though.

You honestly believe that? I don't know much about Orton, but Grossman was better than Carr, which isn't saying much.

adam
01-09-2008, 04:32 PM
You honestly believe that? I don't know much about Orton, but Grossman was better than Carr, which isn't saying much.

Yeah, not by much. In 2006, despite Grossman throwing many more TDs (as well as many more INTS) than Carr, he only completed 54% of his passes for 6.8 yards per pass. Carr completed 68% of his passes at 6.3 yards per pass. Both sucked then in my opinion, but at least Carr could be counted on to make the short dump offs and not turn the ball over. He was never a TD machine, but in my opinion...throwing 8 less INTs is more important than throwing 12 fewer TDs in my opinion. Being a TD machine doesn't mean anything when you throw 20 INTs a year. They both sucked, but during both of their best years (2006) I would have marginally preferred Carr. Not that I would have really been happy with either of them in 2006. Grossman was just lucky to have played for a good team. Whoever picks him up next season, like the Panthers who took Carr this last season, are going to be kicking themselves in the ass. All in all though, this is like comparing cat sh*t and dog sh*t. Just my two cents though.

Perhaps I did exaggerate by saying "not nearly as bad". More like, "marginally better".

Lucky
01-09-2008, 04:36 PM
You can't franchise a RFA, only an URFA.

That's right. This article (http://cle.scout.com/2/717185.html) confused me.
First the Browns must retain Anderson for at least one more year. They have three options. They can sign him to a multiyear contract. They can tender him a $2,562,000 offer, in which case a team signing Anderson to an offer sheet would have to compensate the Browns with a first-round and third-round choice if the Browns do not match. They could also give Anderson the franchise tag. A team offering Anderson a contract in that case would have to compensate the Browns with two first-round picks if they do not match.

Giving Anderson the franchise tag would cost the Browns less in the long run than matching a long-term offer. As a franchise quarterback, Anderson would be paid about $10.6 million in 2008 -- a huge salary-cap hit, but the Browns are about $30 million under the cap. The franchise tag would pair Anderson and Quinn for one more year. The negative to that strategy is Anderson would be an unrestricted free agent on March 1, 2009. That's obviously wrong.

Savage has said that Anderson will get the maximum RFA offer (http://blog.cleveland.com/sports/2008/01/cleveland_browns_will_do_the_r.html) which brings the 1st & 3rd compensation.
He said he intends to intensify work to negotiate new contracts for quarterback Derek Anderson, a restricted free agent, and running back Jamal Lewis, who is unrestricted, "as soon as this week."
If a new contract for Anderson can't be worked out, Savage reiterated the club will give Anderson the contract tender that guarantees a first- and third-round draft choice if another team signs him away in free agency.
How the heck did Mr. Mittens enter the conversation?

Second Honeymoon
01-09-2008, 04:40 PM
Wow, Brady has had bad luck since the day he walked off of Notre Dame's campus. They could possibly get the Bears 1st Round pick for him, which allow them to recoup the 1st round they gave to the Cowboys but I am not sure anyone would bite on that. I just cant see the Browns paying 2 guys starter money. Its like resigning Carr and then drafting/signing Vince Young. it doesn't make sense any way you look at it. Anderson earned the job so I don't feel bad for Brady, but you gotta think he is hating it right about now. Brady could still get you a mid to late 1st Rounder with the current crop of QBs out there this year. Panthers may be willing to take a chance on Quinn also.....who knows.

Specnatz
01-09-2008, 04:46 PM
Wow, Brady has had bad luck since the day he walked off of Notre Dame's campus. They could possibly get the Bears 1st Round pick for him, which allow them to recoup the 1st round they gave to the Cowboys but I am not sure anyone would bite on that. I just cant see the Browns paying 2 guys starter money. Its like resigning Carr and then drafting/signing Vince Young. it doesn't make sense any way you look at it. Anderson earned the job so I don't feel bad for Brady, but you gotta think he is hating it right about now. Brady could still get you a mid to late 1st Rounder with the current crop of QBs out there this year. Panthers may be willing to take a chance on Quinn also.....who knows.

Right now Quinn is not making starter money he is making rookie money and the contract is back loaded if he becomes the starter.

AnthonyE
01-09-2008, 05:30 PM
Good for him.

The Pencil Neck
01-09-2008, 07:43 PM
Yeah, not by much. In 2006, despite Grossman throwing many more TDs (as well as many more INTS) than Carr, he only completed 54% of his passes for 6.8 yards per pass. Carr completed 68% of his passes at 6.3 yards per pass. Both sucked then in my opinion, but at least Carr could be counted on to make the short dump offs and not turn the ball over. He was never a TD machine, but in my opinion...throwing 8 less INTs is more important than throwing 12 fewer TDs in my opinion. Being a TD machine doesn't mean anything when you throw 20 INTs a year.

I disagree with this.

A TD is 6 points. An INT might be 0, 3, 7 points. Some INTs are just garbage trying to make a play at the end of a half and some INTs aren't even the QB's fault. INTs at the wrong time are back breakers but a lot of INTs don't even turn into points (except with our D).

To me, a TD is much more important than an INT. To me, someone who has 20 TDs and 20 INTs is a much, much better QB than someone who has 10 TDs and 10 INTs because those 20 TDs are probably going to translate into more games won.

adam
01-09-2008, 08:08 PM
I disagree with this.

A TD is 6 points. An INT might be 0, 3, 7 points. Some INTs are just garbage trying to make a play at the end of a half and some INTs aren't even the QB's fault. INTs at the wrong time are back breakers but a lot of INTs don't even turn into points (except with our D).

To me, a TD is much more important than an INT. To me, someone who has 20 TDs and 20 INTs is a much, much better QB than someone who has 10 TDs and 10 INTs because those 20 TDs are probably going to translate into more games won.

INTs take away the potential to put points on the board however, which in most cases can kill a teams momentum...which can take even more points off the board. I suppose it's how you look at it though.

ATX
01-09-2008, 08:14 PM
Both of y'all make good points, but I have to agree with Pencil neck. TDs are confirmed points, while turnovers are only potentials on both sides.

Fox
01-09-2008, 09:58 PM
A TD can give your team +6 pts. An INT can conceivably cost you the 3-7 pts you were going to score on the drive, plus result in the opposing team scoring 3-7 additional points. If I'm a defensive minded team with a running game, I might take the 10-10 over the 20-20.

The Pencil Neck
01-09-2008, 10:30 PM
A TD can give your team +6 pts. An INT can conceivably cost you the 3-7 pts you were going to score on the drive, plus result in the opposing team scoring 3-7 additional points. If I'm a defensive minded team with a running game, I might take the 10-10 over the 20-20.

Frankly, I think it's very rare to find a QB allowed to play the complete season if he only scores 10 TD's in the season. I just glanced at the stats and this year, none of the QB's that have < 18 TD's played the entire season. I think the closest is probably VY with 9 TD's in 15 games started. I think that usually if you're scoring at a pace where you're only going to score 10, you almost always get benched for another option.

Fox
01-09-2008, 10:53 PM
Frankly, I think it's very rare to find a QB allowed to play the complete season if he only scores 10 TD's in the season. I just glanced at the stats and this year, none of the QB's that have < 18 TD's played the entire season. I think the closest is probably VY with 9 TD's in 15 games started. I think that usually if you're scoring at a pace where you're only going to score 10, you almost always get benched for another option.

Only one QB this year threw 20 INT's without throwing atleast 3 more TD's, Jon Kitna. Not a stellar performance. Hard to win with that many picks unless you throw (considerably) more TD's, IMO. In today's NFL 15 games started is pretty close to a full season.

The Pencil Neck
01-09-2008, 11:31 PM
Only one QB this year threw 20 INT's without throwing atleast 3 more TD's, Jon Kitna. Not a stellar performance. Hard to win with that many picks unless you throw (considerably) more TD's, IMO. In today's NFL 15 games started is pretty close to a full season.

Only 3 guys threw 20 INT's this year: Kitna, Eli Manning, and Palmer.

Kitna started off 6-2 with 10 TD's and 7 INT's and he was sacked 33 times in those 8 games. Jeez. Overall, in their wins he was 8 TD's and 4 INT's with 19 sacks (0.097 sacks per attempt); in their losses he had 10 TD's and 16 INT's and 32 sacks (0.087 sacks per attempt.) I didn't expect the sacks per attempt to turn out like that.

I would take any of those three guys season vs. the only guy that had < 15 TD's who started most of the season: VY.

When I get some time, I'll come up with a worksheet showing correlation of TD/INT ratio and W/L. The guys with 20/20 and 10/10 might have a similar W/L ratio.

kastofsna
01-10-2008, 01:01 AM
in Dan Marino's 48 TD season, Miami was 14-2.
in Peyton Manning's 49 TD season, Indianapolis was 12-4.
in Tom Brady's 50 TD season, New England was 16-0.

The Pencil Neck
01-10-2008, 01:03 AM
in Dan Marino's 48 TD season, Miami was 14-2.
in Peyton Manning's 49 TD season, Indianapolis was 12-4.
in Tom Brady's 50 TD season, New England was 16-0.

Yeah, but those seasons, their TD to INT ratio wasn't anywhere near 1.

Fox
01-10-2008, 10:42 AM
Only 3 guys threw 20 INT's this year: Kitna, Eli Manning, and Palmer.

Kitna started off 6-2 with 10 TD's and 7 INT's and he was sacked 33 times in those 8 games. Jeez. Overall, in their wins he was 8 TD's and 4 INT's with 19 sacks (0.097 sacks per attempt); in their losses he had 10 TD's and 16 INT's and 32 sacks (0.087 sacks per attempt.) I didn't expect the sacks per attempt to turn out like that.

I would take any of those three guys season vs. the only guy that had < 15 TD's who started most of the season: VY.

When I get some time, I'll come up with a worksheet showing correlation of TD/INT ratio and W/L. The guys with 20/20 and 10/10 might have a similar W/L ratio.

I'd be interested to see what you come up with. You might have a paucity of data because as you said, not many QB's throw for 10 TD's or less. I was just sayin if I had a good D and running game, I'd take the QB who makes fewer mistakes and let my team strength's win games for me.

The Pencil Neck
01-10-2008, 10:52 AM
I'd be interested to see what you come up with. You might have a paucity of data because as you said, not many QB's throw for 10 TD's or less. I was just sayin if I had a good D and running game, I'd take the QB who makes fewer mistakes and let my team strength's win games for me.

Yeah, I understand your point but my point was that points win games. TD's are definite points for you while the INT's are sometimes points for your opposition and sometimes not and sometimes backbreakers that take points away from you and sometimes not, then the definite TD and definite points for you counts more than possible points against you.

OTOH (and this is your point), you do see lots of times a QB with 1 TD and 1 INT winning games and less often do you see a QB with 2/2 or 3/3 win the game.

I'll try to put something together tonight.

Goldensilence
01-10-2008, 11:17 AM
Derek had a great season but the oline really jelled with Joe Thomas, Jamal Lewis surged back to his former self giving the run gamea huge boost, Winslow was healthy and Braylon finally seemed to get it and made a share of good plays on the ball. I think those things came together perfectly for Derek at the righttime. Is the guy? Not really sure and I sure wouldn't annoint him going into the offseason THE guy.

Maybe Romeo knows something I don't though. But i can certainly understand the importance of getting consistant play from the QB position and going with what looked like solid most of the year. I feel for Brady though. Guy has done nothing but had stellar career under the spotlight at ND and keeps getting hosed. Guy has starting QB potential and i hope he gets a shot somewhere.

The Pencil Neck
01-10-2008, 11:00 PM
I'd be interested to see what you come up with. You might have a paucity of data because as you said, not many QB's throw for 10 TD's or less. I was just sayin if I had a good D and running game, I'd take the QB who makes fewer mistakes and let my team strength's win games for me.

First, I used numbers from NFL.com but I don't know what the deal is with that site but it's really slow so this was like pulling teeth.

Here's what I did, I excluded some of the high and low fliers. I sorted by number of TD's and grabbed Kurt Warner to Joey Harrington. I pulled out their TD's, INT's, QB rating for overall and for number of losses and wins. I pulled out the QB's with winning records and the QB's with losing records. I looked at the TD to INT ratios overall and for wins and losses.

Ultimately, winning QB's that don't have a ton of TD's (McNabb, Garrard, Young, Manning, Jackson, Rivers) have a little over a TD per game and about 3/4's of an INT per game (1.12:0.78). Losing QB's have about a 1:1 ratio.

So... if they're 20/20 or 10/10, it doesn't make a difference. You've probably got a losing record unless your QB can make that a positive ratio. That makes Vince Young even more of an anomaly.

Now, just to carry this on because I found this interesting:

Winning QB's had about a 1:1 ratio of TD's to INT's in their losses and about a 1.15:0.62 ratio in their wins. Losing QB's had a 1:1.3 ratio in their losses and about a 1.25:0.65 ratio in their wins. In other words, the losing QB's played worse than the winning QB's in losing games but they played better than the winning QB's in their wins. This even held in terms of QB Rating. In winning their games, the winning QB's had an average QB rate of 89.1 while the losing QB's had a rating of 96.2. In losing games, the losing QB's had a rating of 74.1 and winning QB's had a rating of 76.1. Overall, winning QB's had a rating of 83.6 and losing QB's had a rating of 80.6.

Fox
01-10-2008, 11:27 PM
First, I used numbers from NFL.com but I don't know what the deal is with that site but it's really slow so this was like pulling teeth.

Here's what I did, I excluded some of the high and low fliers. I sorted by number of TD's and grabbed Kurt Warner to Joey Harrington. I pulled out their TD's, INT's, QB rating for overall and for number of losses and wins. I pulled out the QB's with winning records and the QB's with losing records. I looked at the TD to INT ratios overall and for wins and losses.

Ultimately, winning QB's that don't have a ton of TD's (McNabb, Garrard, Young, Manning, Jackson, Rivers) have a little over a TD per game and about 3/4's of an INT per game (1.12:0.78). Losing QB's have about a 1:1 ratio.

So... if they're 20/20 or 10/10, it doesn't make a difference. You've probably got a losing record unless your QB can make that a positive ratio. That makes Vince Young even more of an anomaly.

Now, just to carry this on because I found this interesting:

Winning QB's had about a 1:1 ratio of TD's to INT's in their losses and about a 1.15:0.62 ratio in their wins. Losing QB's had a 1:1.3 ratio in their losses and about a 1.25:0.65 ratio in their wins. In other words, the losing QB's played worse than the winning QB's in losing games but they played better than the winning QB's in their wins. This even held in terms of QB Rating. In winning their games, the winning QB's had an average QB rate of 89.1 while the losing QB's had a rating of 96.2. In losing games, the losing QB's had a rating of 74.1 and winning QB's had a rating of 76.1. Overall, winning QB's had a rating of 83.6 and losing QB's had a rating of 80.6.

Stout work, interesting stuff, I'd rep you but apparently I have to spread it around before giving it to you again. Sounds like consistent production at QB leads to consistent winning %'s. Guys like Garrard and Garcia are showing that you don't have to put up spectacular #'s to lead your teams to great records, you just have to play consistently.