Desperate, Far Fetched Idea that may work

by VD cant be Contained on Nov 12, 2007 10:20 PM PST

These past 7 losses have caused me to lose the desire to write a post or two around here, but I had to get this potentially franchise-saving idea out there.

Quick flashback: Does anyone remember the Chargers drafted Phillip Rivers in 2004, only to see Drew Brees blow up the following season? Remember the frustration that Rivers expressed, causing him to be thrown around in trade rumors, including to the Niners as part of a package for the #1 overall pick?

This is a problem that arises when you draft a QB thinking it takes a year to groom him, only to have the incumbent show off his true potential when he's on his way out the door. This exact situation is currently happening...in CLEVELAND.

Derek Anderson is lighting it up, so my question is how much/how feasible is it to trade for Brady Quinn? As much potential as he has, I dont think the fans/management in Cleveland are erady to abandon whats working for them this year, and I know that management doesnt wanna pay that salary to sit on the bench for 3 years. Would a second round pick land him? I know theres a lot of ND/Quinn haters out there, but we're not getting a QB on the free agent market, and its not worth spending our late 1st rd pick on a QB that has a 50/50 shot (or less) of making it in the league.

I'd love to hear your comments about this, or your version of the "Based on the pics posted online, Brady Quinn would a great fit for San Francisco, especially the Castro District" joke.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Two words.....

Trent Edwards, he had Bill Walsh's endorsement and he would be easier to land than Quinn

by JAKE85 on Nov 12, 2007 11:08 PM PST reply actions

Edwards vs. Quinn

I don't know if Edwards would be easier to get because he is the guy of the future in Buffalo and played pretty solidly before he hurt his wrist.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Nov 13, 2007 7:37 AM PST up reply actions

Interesting...

I wonder with Cleveland if they would try to trade Anderson, given his inflated value...or if they would deem Quinn obsolete/unnecessary.

We already invested this year's 1st round draft pick in Joe Staley, so that leaves us thin at the top rounds.

Maybe we could land Quinn for Kwame Harris and a 2nd rounder???

I am interested to hear what other people think would be fair for both sides.

by BawLa on Nov 12, 2007 11:52 PM PST reply actions

Anderson

I think that Cleveland would be more willing to part with Anderson, for the reason that his value is as high as it could be right now. San Diego had the Rivers and Brees situation for a couple of years, but in the end chose Rivers. The Browns gave up so much for Quinn, it'd be kind of stupid to give him up without even seeing what he could do.

As for the 49ers being thin at the top of the draft, I wouldn't necessarily say that. They essentially traded down this year to trade up last year, as they still hold a 1st and a 2nd round pick. The 1st rounder is just a (very) late pick.

The team has way more pertinent issues outside of the quarterback situation. Alex Smith's passing percentage wasn't THAT bad. Battle dropped WAY more passes last night than I EVER remember him dropping. On top of that, Smith probably isn't completely healthy yet.

The 49ers need to solidify their offensive line. I don't see them going through free agency, because if they were going that route, they probably would have re-signed Smiley or Harris by now. They're looking to the draft, and to fix the line in-house.

As Fooch pointed on in the main section (I think), if the 49ers don't take someone that eclipses the 300 pound mark in the first two picks (which will probably be 10 to 15 picks between each other), I will be very upset. They need a true nose tackle, or another offensive lineman (preferably a tackle).

I realized I just spent two or three paragraphs sort of on a tangent. To get back to your question about what's "fair" to both sides, I don't think they could reach an agreement. The Browns will probably ask for 2nd or 3rd rounder for Anderson. They'll probably want to at LEAST recuperate their lost first rounder for Quinn. As I pointed out, the 49ers need more help than a potential backup QB, and their first two picks (late 1st and early 2nd) are too valuable. Basically, very slim chance this will happen.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 8:56 AM PST up reply actions

For what it's worth...

For what it's worth, though, Steve Young and Ron Jaworski both love Derek Anderson. Steve Young was raving about him on his radio show last week with Ralph and Tom and had nothing but good things to say last night as well.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 8:57 AM PST up reply actions

I thought

you were going to suggest that we draft another "QB of the future" with the plan to groom him under Smith for a year, and then hope that that causes Smith to breakout the way Brees and Anderson have.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Nov 13, 2007 10:52 AM PST reply actions

Same

That's where I thought he was going as well. In my opinion, however, you should always try to catch your own lightning in a bottle. If you pay for someone else's lightning or leftovers (i.e. Anderson or Quinn), you'll always overpay.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 11:10 AM PST up reply actions

It's not only a problem

That the Chargers and the Browns have had. To some extent we've seen the same thing recently in Atlanta (though they blew THAT one), Jacksonville, NYJ, Chicago, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Dallas, Baltimore, Buffalo, Denver, Arizona, and even Oakland.

Obviously, none of these situations are identical or even COMPLETELY applicable, but other than Atlanta and Kansas City, I think we'd like to be in the same position as almost all of these teams when it comes to QB.

Having options is always a good thing. Having competition is always a good thing. Like I said in the gameday thread last night: I'm not convinced that a STARTING QB needs to be a priority in the offseason, but the QB position absolutely has to be.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Nov 13, 2007 11:09 AM PST reply actions

As I alluded to above.

The team should try to capture it's own lightning in a bottle. Maybe trade a 4th round pick, or use it to pick up a QB. The team should (almost) DEFINITELY not use a pick from the first three rounds on a QB, though.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 11:12 AM PST up reply actions

As for Brady Quinn

I've been very vocal about how much I don't like him in the past, and I'm absolutely giddy that Anderson is putting the Browns in this position. Personally, I wouldn't like it if we landed Quinn. I don't like the guy and I don't think he's going to be that good.

BUT, that doesn't mean he's not still a high end prospect. He has all the tools in terms of vision, accuracy, and strength ad shouldn't be expected to fail (though I don't believe he will succeed). Frankly, he's exactly the kind of player that we should be bringing in, whether through FA, trades, or the draft.

Like sfgfan, though, I don't believe that Quinn would be easy to get. The Browns have put a lot into him, and there is a reason that teams routinely stick with their expensive draft picks over their incumbent stars (a la Brees).

Might we be able to get Anderson? Now that I would be VERY excited about... though I imagine with his value as high as it is right now it would cost an absolute fortune to get it done.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Nov 13, 2007 11:15 AM PST up reply actions

Anderson

I'm not a big fan of Anderson. Cleveland has a great offensive line and a top 5 WR and TE. I imagine if you just switched Alex Smith and Anderson, everybody would be jumping off the Anderson bandwagon right on to Smith's. That's just my opinion though.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Nov 13, 2007 12:23 PM PST up reply actions

There's probably more than a shred of truth there

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Nov 13, 2007 12:28 PM PST up reply actions

From what I understand

He has very solid fundamentals, though. Your thought does make sense, and I'm actually inclined to agree. I really think Alex could do well if given protection (and WRs).

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 12:29 PM PST up reply actions

Football

I would like to rephrase my thoughts a bit. It's not that I think Anderson is no good (I also don't think Smith is no good). There are MANY QB's who would fail in Anderson's situation and he deserves credit for what he has done. My main issue with Anderson, which has been brought up, is that he will be overpriced and I'm not sold that he would be an improvement over Smith.

Football is a real pain in the ass this way. In baseball, it's much more clear cut who does what and who is better than who (whom?). However, in football it's usually insanely hard to tell, especially so when you aren't dealing with the elite players.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Nov 13, 2007 1:50 PM PST up reply actions

I think it was understood.

I think you were understood quite well the first time. It's good to clarify just in case, as it's always better to make sure than to assume.

I totally agree (and hammer the sentiment around here all the time) that it's hard to know who is affecting what. Just like how you point out it's hard to tell who's better than who, it's just as hard to tell who' at fault when all the marbles fall.

I'm curious about Anderson though. Was he "claimed" off waivers in 2005? The reason I ask is because if he was claimed, he assumes his rookie contract, meaning there's probably another year left on the contract. However, if he was signed by the Browns, it's possible he could be a free agent at seasons end. Does anyone know his contract status? Regardless, he would be a restricted free agent, meaning the Browns could match any contract offer a team throws into the ring.

Maybe his cost won't be THAT high if he came over as a free agent. In a trade scenario, though, it'll probably be more than he is really worth.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 1:56 PM PST up reply actions

Ok

Just wanted to make sure. Teacher always told me what happens when you assume.

Anyways, from this message board, it says Anderson will be a RFA after this year. Details on how that works inside the link.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Nov 13, 2007 2:39 PM PST up reply actions

Hmm

So apparently his rookie deal was only for two years, instead of what (appears to be) the standard three years. I think Quinn AND Anderson are out of the question, in this case. It'd make little sense on the Browns part to NOT fork over the ~$2.5M to keep him for another year while they evaluate Quinn some more.

It'd make NO sense for a team to fork over a first and third rounder for Derek Anderson, unless the team is just a QB away from competing. In my mind, any struggling team this is isn't struggling just because of their QB, so it'd be tough to find a team to take that sort of a hit.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions

Three years

This is his third year. He was from the same class as Smith, just, you know, around 200 picks later. So I think his deal was the standard three.

I'd assume the Browns give him the max tender and then try to trade him. Perhaps at the deadline, and I would assume (uh-oh) the team trading for him would be given a window to work out a contract extension. Unless, of course, he continues to spit hot fire, then all bets are probably off.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Nov 13, 2007 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

:slaps forhead:

Doh! I can't believe I miss counted not once, but twice how many years he's been in the league.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 3:25 PM PST up reply actions

It's ok

After last night's game, I'm surprised we're all able to construct sentences.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Nov 13, 2007 4:08 PM PST up reply actions

Smith > Edwards

Another shitty job at talent evaluation.

by methodrampage on Nov 13, 2007 2:30 PM PST reply actions

Hmm?

For some reason, this comment confuses me. Maybe it's the afternoon lull, but what are you saying exactly?

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 2:38 PM PST up reply actions

See below

My NN proficiency is at an all time low today.

by methodrampage on Nov 13, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions

Braylon Edwards

What I'm saying is that whoever deemed Alex Smith worthy of the #1 pick of the '05 draft over Braylon Edwards did a poor job at evaluating talent. I'd also argue that Ronnie Brown should have been taken over Smith but I'm fine with taking Gore in the 3rd.

The case of taking Edwards over Smith holds more water when you look at the QBs that came out in '06. Vince Young sucks but atleast the Titans can win games. Cutler and Leinart are way better than Smith currently is.

by methodrampage on Nov 13, 2007 3:51 PM PST reply actions

Like so many other things the 49ers do...

It's not like I hate(d) the pick, but I also wanted Braylon Edwards with that pick that year. Didn't really matter that there was no one around who would throw him the ball, he was just the better option. As for Brown, I don't envision Nolan ever using a first round pick on a running back. If I understand his (and McCloughan's) philosophy correctly (which I'm not saying I do), it's probably one of those positions where they think they'd find a very good back in the later rounds.

While I did want Edwards, I can understand why they went with the QB first. With the West Coast offense in place, a complex system as it stands, they probably wanted to get their QB a head start over the rest of their offense. I totally understand this, and it's not like Smith didn't have the ability. So yeah, I can see why they went with the QB. There is no way in hell Nolan could have forseen the hell hole his offensive coordinator situation would sink into less than three years later.

I was disappointed when Leinart didn't come out in 2005, and you're right, he's better than Smith currently is.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 4:02 PM PST up reply actions

I get why they did it

but it was still a bad decision. When you have the first pick you usually are a shitty team with a mediocre to bad QB. Therefore you feel the need, and pressure, to get a franchise QB, and you think that when you have that first pick you have to spend it on the most important position. Sadly we had that pick when there were no franchise QBs in the draft (or no obvious ones). Smith was a gamble coming from such a college/unique system. I thought we should get Braylon and be crappy again, have another top 10 pick, and take a QB the next year when it was bound to be a stronger QB class (as it was with Young/Leinart/Cutler). But hindsight is 20/20.

Now we have to work with what we've got, and we don't got shit, so we're gonna be shitty.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Nov 13, 2007 4:54 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah.

But it's not like anyone could single Alex Smith out right now and say he'd be terrible. If he were in Dallas, could he succeed? He may not be like Tony Romo, but I'm more than certain he'd do well. I don't think he's bad at all, and I think he could be a very good quarterback. By no means a franchise QB, but this team doesn't need that.

Say the team took Braylon (like we wanted), and then took Leinart the next year. The offensive line may still be where it is today, and there is no way Leinart could succeed in these conditions. I don't even think guys like Manning or Brady could succeed here. I can't say for sure, but it's easy to think that it's possible. The situation is just terrible, and would be for any quarterback.

by sfgfan on Nov 13, 2007 5:00 PM PST up reply actions

Guaranteed

Leinart would have at least 3 TD pass through 10 games (he's on pace for 5.4 for the entire season and well I guess that's better than zero). Even in David Carr's worst season in Houston he through for 9 TDs and his line wasn't any better than Smith's. Smith and this offense are historically bad.

by methodrampage on Nov 14, 2007 7:59 AM PST up reply actions

Car threw for 9

not through for 9

by methodrampage on Nov 14, 2007 8:11 AM PST up reply actions

Edwards vs. Smith

Thing is we may have had Edwards and nobody to throw to him but it's likely that we could have addressed QB in the 2nd or 3rd round of that draft or the season after. It's also concievable that if we don't take Smith, in an ultrasimplified view of the draft, that one of either Smith, Rodgers or Campbell slides into the second round. But now we have Smith with nobody, less VD(?), for him to throw to.

by methodrampage on Nov 14, 2007 8:17 AM PST up reply actions