[Bobbuttons]

During the broadcast of the last game, the commentators were talking about what leaving Peyton Manning in for every game in his rookie year did for him, despite going 3-13. They said that Manning said that he learned so much about playing in the 4th quarter during that season. It makes me think about the Browns situation. What could Quinn have learned over the entire season, even if the team went 2-14, 1-15 or even 0-16? I actually think that any quarterback would learn a lot, even under those conditions. That being said, the Browns of 2009 are so much different than the Colts of 1999. The Colts had a much more consistent offensive line, leading to Manning only getting sacked 22 times (compared to Quinn's 10 sacks in 2.5 games), and also giving them a much better running game than the Browns could even dream of.

But still comparing, Manning did throw 28 interceptions that year. Manning takes far more chances than Quinn, so Quinn wouldn't throw anywhere near as many picks. However, how long would it be before the offense finally started to move consistently under Quinn? Who knows, now that he's been pulled. The Colts went from 3-13 to 13-3 the next year, and Manning's QB rating jumped nearly 20 points. If you take away the threat of benching during a bad game, a QB could actually improve. Look at Derek Anderson. In 2006, despite getting replaced in the season finale by Charlie Frye, DA started 3 straight games, and they were not good games offensively. Yet, he wasn't benched during the game. He was left in to continue fighting. Perhaps that helped him for the next season when he went to the Pro Bowl and led the team to 10 wins.

I don't know. It's all just speculation at this point. If Brady Quinn would throw medium length passes more often, or if Derek Anderson would throw into triple coverage less often, this team would be much easier to watch. That doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.