Read Sports Geek and Loyal Homer’s argument on whether or not Cleveland Browns head coach Eric Mangini’s decision to keep the starting quarterback a secret was a good one.
For weeks building up to (and through) the preseason, there was much speculation in Cleveland as to who the starting quarterback for the Cleveland Browns would be. Would it be the 2007 Pro Bowler Derek Anderson, or the highly touted 2007 draft pick Brady Quinn? Last season, it appeared that Quinn had officially claimed the spot when he replaced Anderson mid-season. However, subsequent injuries by both Quinn and Anderson during the 2008 season, along with the announcement that Eric Mangini would replace Romeo Crennel as head coach, threw everything back up in the air.
When Mangini came into the Browns organization, he immediately announced that there would be an open competition for the starting quarterback position. All through training camp, there was speculation around which quarterback actually had the edge. Neither seemed to take the steps necessary to claim the starting position outright, leaving the public with only guesses as to what was going on in the head of Mangini.
Then, in a move that had many people around the league scratching their heads, Mangini publicly stated that he would keep the starting quarterback a secret even after deciding who it would be. His reasoning – to keep the Vikings guessing.
The Minnesota Vikings were scheduled as the Browns’ week one opponents, and Mangini felt that he was gaining a competitive edge over Minnesota with the secret because it forced the Vikings to prepare for defending against two different quarterbacks, instead of just one.
Now that the first week of NFL competition is complete, with the Vikings beating the Browns by a score of 34-20, I am asking my esteemed colleagues at The Sports Debates to evaluate Mangini’s decision.
In hindsight, was it a wise decision by Eric Mangini to keep his choice as starting quarterback for the Cleveland Browns a secret until the last possible moment?
Keep in mind that losing the game does not automatically mean that Mangini made a poor choice. If not for running back Adrian Peterson’s impressive performance on offense for the Vikings (180 rushing yards and three touchdowns), the Vikings could have lost on Sunday.
Loyal Homer will argue that this decision, although it did not help change the outcome of the game, was still a wise decision on the part of Eric Mangini because the Vikings had to split their defensive focus and could not prepare for simply one gameplan. Sports Geek will argue that the choice was a bad one.
So which is it? Were these the actions of a mad-man or a Man-genius?!
