Did a qb controversy factor into Jake playing?

[Sigflanagan6]

Hear me out on this. Last year the whole quarterback drama killed this team. Heading into this year it looked like we would be drama free at that position. Had Jake been pulled, and Wallace led us to victory, I think it would have created a huge problem, perhaps even more so than losing the game. Any chance Mangini didn't pull Jake to try and avoid this?

[sirpaul]

I think it may have had a part in it, but I believe Jake when he says he didn't realize how bad it was until later that night. Unless the trainers said he couldn't go, Mangini pulling Jake would've come across as pulling him for poor play...thus creating another QB controversy.

[TommyDee]

Listen, I hate QB controversies more than ANYONE. But if at any point a coach doesn't execute a pull due to the consequences of that pull, regardless of if he thinks it is his best chance to win, then he is in over his head.

In other words, if Mangini thought Wallace was the best shot to win last week, he would have been in the game.

Now the question becomes, how could he not feel that way with how Delhomme was playing on that ankle? That might be more telling on how he feels about Wallace as a QB.

[sirpaul]

I agree Tommy now if it was Colt that was the back up and he wasn't ready to go with the rookie yet that would be different. I didn't think Seneca played badly in the preseason, so avoiding the controversy and sticking with the guy that got most of the reps the past 6 weeks is the only thing that makes sense to me.

[TommyDee]

I'm not sure you do agree with me. I'm saying there is no way the thought of a controversy if Wallace won the game entered Mangini's mind.

Mangini thought Delhmomme on that ankle was his best shot to win.

[Sigflanagan6]

Imagine if Wallace had come in and led us to a victory. What a mess that would be. I just know when Rich Gannon can see it was hurting his play, then pretty much anybody with sight would've been able to notice that.

[Diz]

I'm just glad the Browns finally have a QB that wants to lead his team and will stay in the game to "try" and do what it takes to get a win and not pull himself out of the game when he gets a hang nail like the last 5 pussy QB's that were here.

I like run on sentences.

[TommyDee]

So you honestly think Mangini thought Wallace was his best shot to win the game, but he didn't make the move because of what that pull would have caused?

To quote some asshat, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

[Sigflanagan6]

I'm saying that if it was obvious to Gannon, who is a complete idiot, it should have been obvious to Mangini. I'm not buying the whole we thought he was healthy crap. I think with the debacle last year, that he is going to be very, very show on making that change.

[Diz]

I agree with Tommy. If Mangini thought Wallace was his best option he would of pulled Jake as soon as he started limping. Mangini doesn't care if the fans start another QB controversy, he needs to win.

[sirpaul]

Sept 16, 2010 10:06:52 GMT -5 TommyDee said:

I'm not sure you do agree with me. I'm saying there is no way the thought of a controversy if Wallace won the game entered Mangini's mind.

Mangini thought Delhmomme on that ankle was his best shot to win.

You're right I guess I don't agree with you...completely. I don't think he kept Wallace out to avoid a controversy I think he kept him out because Jake and the trainers said he was fine and Jake had the most preparation.

Dizzle not sure what 5 you mean. Brady generally broke or tore something that ended his season, DA didn't get hurt. Frye finished the season, Dilfer got benched, something happened to Garcia (don't remember what) Holcomb sucked, Couch spent 5 years getting beat up. Could you clarify please?

[Sigflanagan6]

I guess what I'm really saying is Mangini is an idiot for not making the change. I'm just attempting to come up with another theory that would make me feel otherwise.