Frye dealt to Seattle

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

According to foxsports.com, it was for a sixth round pick. Not bad - at least we got something for him.

by Buckeye Brad on Sep 11, 2007 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not big on the timing, but honestly I was looking for a 5th/6th for him on draft day to be satisfied, so I can't complain now. Best of luck to Charlie in Seattle. The WCO fits him much better than anything Cleveland has run while he's been here.

by Fundamentals on Sep 11, 2007 1:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

What has Cleveland run since he got here? As a matter of fact, what have they run since 1999?
I've seen beeter offense drawn on the ground with a fingertip.

Truth B Known - tellin' it like it is, believe it or not.

by Truth B Known on Sep 12, 2007 5:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I think it is a good move by Savage. He got something for a player that is going to have no value to us in a couple of weeks...

by Bernie19Kosar on Sep 11, 2007 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I just think this shows just how unprepared for the season the Browns really were. I mean, who starts a QB the first game of the season only to trade him for a 2nd day pick two days later. What did the preseason or training camp really mean?

I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting, but I just don't think REAL teams do this. Granted, we don't exactly have super talent at QB, but normally, the preseason is the time to figure out who's going to start at QB and when. If you don't want Brady to start next week, this was the wrong move to make.

Even the Couch/Holocomb debacle was handled better then this.

by painaxl on Sep 11, 2007 2:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

The REAL question is, how does a GM and an owner allow such indecisiveness to go on for so long and especially during what should be the most decisive period of the year, that is, training camp?

Obviously, the Browns organization is dysfunctional; Phil Savage has to be on top of Crennel's decision-making--probling, questioning, supervising, and yes, second-guessing him for the better.

For me, it's all falling more and more into Savage's lap.

by ploni on Sep 11, 2007 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I love the comment from painaxl, "I don't think real teams do this." How would you feel if your boss gave you 20 minutes to prove yourself when the both he and the management did nothing to bolster Charlie's self-confidence. A coin toss to decide the QB in a preseason game? Most Browns fans could have made a decision. So the next question is -- when WILL the Browns be a real team?

by OhioFan on Sep 11, 2007 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

when romeo if fired and we hire an experienced coach and not a rookie NFL head coach. thats when we will be a real NFL team.

by kjc on Sep 11, 2007 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I know, what has Romeo ever proved? What championship play has he ever been responsible for? Amateur.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

i dont care wat he did as an DC. I want an experienced head coach. we never have had an experienced head coach since our comeback.

by kjc on Sep 11, 2007 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I'm just very anti-Blame the Coach crowd. It's the same with Eric Wedge.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Not saying I agree with the FIRE CRENNEL people, but I believe coaches have much more influence in a game like football than managers do in baseball.

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Me too. A lot more.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

nick, i understand where your coming from and sorry if i kinda went off in a comment earlier that is listed below but I really think we need an experienced coach who had taken a team to the playoffs as a head coach and not as a coordinator.

by kjc on Sep 11, 2007 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

But look how good that defense was in NE. It's clear to me this isn't an issue of bad coaching, but horrible (horrible) talent. And we all know the famous coaching tree thing. Those guys find success when they have good teams. Romeo needs a good team.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

like you said Romeo needs a good team. If he were a good head coach he wouldnt need a good team to be good. a good head coach should be able to develope a good team.

as far as his track record he was browns DC in 2000 and look how we did. also he was under belicheck in NE and i wonder how much of NE's defensive success was Romeo or Belicheck.

its just like college football and the nfl. some ppl r made to coach college and some are made to coach nfl. well in this case some ppl are made to be coordinators and some are made to be head coaches.

by kjc on Sep 11, 2007 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

We may just be straying into a circuitous agree-to-disagree territory.

I may be wrong. I'll be the first to admit it. I just don't think we would ever know if Romeo could be a good coach if we fire him now, with what little we've given him.

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm willing to risk two more bad years to find out. I'm in this for the long haul.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Wow, what I said but in less words. I need to learn how to curtail my expressions in writing.

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I really don't think it's that simple. First of all, name me some instances of coaches coaching a team full of bad players to a good (and sustainably good) record. Secondly, the onus is on the front office to get some decent players in here. Our lack of success in large part is because of years of poor drafts by Davis, Policy, et al and injury problems. Neither of which are Romeo's problems.

Now, you can say RC isn't a good motivator or leader, and that might be the case, but how could we prove that one way or another until we get a team even halfway full of people who have a slight clue as to how to play the game?

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

A lot of talk was going on over at Let's Go Tribe, and Turk feels, rightfully so, that it should be moved over here.

My point can be seen here.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

As far as the coinflip goes, I don't blame Crennel. It's Charlie Frye or Derek Anderson. If I may bring some of my LGT culture into this, it's like being asked if you'd rather have Darin Erstad or Trot Nixon on your team. Why not just flip a coin when the end result is going to be crap anyway?

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Because flipping a coin shows you have zero leadership or decision-making skills.

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

For all we know it was Crennel trying to stir some inspired play out of his QBs by publicly saying, "This is my opinion of how the two of you have been playing. It's so crappy I couldn't care less which one of you started." I would certainly by embarrassed if my coach said a coin flip would determine whether or not I started.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I doubt it. As per your Nixon/Erstad analogy, this situation would be more like saying "i'm going to flip a coin to decide whether Jamie Moyer or Jeremy Sowers is going to be my staff ace."

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

name me one other team who flipped a coin to decide who starts a game????

by kjc on Sep 11, 2007 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Name me why it matters what other team did it.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

because if it was etical then another team would do it... maybe we should try and aim ourselves to be like other teams that are successful and not try to make our crappy team successful with things that r unheard of like flipping coins to decide who starts. even an high school coach can tell you that shows no leadership and is dumb. thats why it matters...amateur!

by kjc on Sep 11, 2007 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

First, if you meant "ethical," I don't know how ethics play into it.

Second: not try to make our crappy team successful with things that r unheard of like flipping coins ... I missed the press conference when Romeo said, "And this decision will ultimately lead to the success or failure of this franchise." Is it really that big of a deal? Will this be his legacy? If we hire a new coach in 08 and he takes us to a Superbowl, will there be this joyous on-field interview in which the coach says, "I attribute this Superbowl victory to not flipping a coin! That's what matters most, baby! I'm going to Disneyworld"?

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

This is a reductio ad absurdum argument and while I agree that the coin flip has no intrinsic significance or meaning for the larger season, it is demonstrative of the level of concern that Crennel shows for the outward appearance of the football team which is to say not at all. While this may not seem important to you, I would submit that there is an important distinction between baseball and football at work here.

There is a fundamental difference between baseball and football when it comes to perception vs reality and the nature of the game. In baseball, the clubhouse, and all of the daily machinations that go with it, are largely hidden from view. Most fans take no interest in clubhouse activities or the behind the scenes demeanor of the manager. When most people criticize a baseball manager, they criticize him on the basis of in-game decision making.

In football, the coach is scrutinized as heavily, if not more so, for the work done before and after the game as they are during the "60 minutes of hell" that exists once a week. There are daily reports through any media outlet, local or national, speculating as to the plans, attitudes and demeanor of the players and coach of any of the 32 NFL teams. Therefore, on a weekly basis, every minute decision made by an NFL coach will be scrutinized by local and national media whereas baseball managers and players will often go weeks without that level of scrutiny.

A lot of this is due to the relative schedules of each sport. Football teams play 1/10th the number of games but inarguably play in the more popular and scrutinized sport. In addition to the relative brevity of the NFL season, there is also the factor of intensity. While there can be no doubt that baseball is an intense sport that requires top 1% concentration, football is a violent, frightening sport that requires an almost fanatical vision of one's goals in the game (See this excellent piece by Ross Tucker.) As a result, players have less room for self-doubt and introspection in football. Where it might be possible for a baseball team to feel uncertain about its leadership, a football team NEEDS a quarterback to provide a centralized point of confidence and support.

In addition to adding emotional weight to this issue, football's shortened schedule also decreases the number of possible topics for speculation and discussion. The end result of this process is an atmosphere that is over-serious and harshly unforgiving. In this atmosphere, it is unacceptable to comment, honestly or otherwise, that ANY decision was made by the flip of a coin.

Similar to previous LGT discussions that have pointed out the baseball cultural notion of "clutch," there are football culture notions that exist within the game, regardless of objective logical merit. One of these is certainly "Don't ever tell anyone that talent evaluation has taken a back seat to coin-flipping, especially when it comes to the quarterback position." There are many more such notions. In fact, for as ridden with obsolete cultural notions as baseball is, it may be that football is now more afflicted than baseball, if only because the efforts of sabermetricians have been more successful in baseball than in football in tempering such inclinations. (Another good example is the Football Outsiders campaign to do away with the "Running = Winning" argument.)

All of this is simply to say that a lot of the conversations we have on LGT are grounded in the relative comfort of long-term statistical analysis. Given the hellstorm provoked by the Browns loss this weekend, it seems to me that football does not lend itself to ANY long-term considerations. I sense that you and I might agree that this is unfortunate, indeed even foolhardy. However, much in the same way that economic inequality is a stark reality in baseball, the reality in football is that it exists almost entirely in the moment. This perhaps might be the greatest hurdle facing any team in need of a five year rebuilding plan. Unfortunately, the luxury that Mark Shapiro has had of painstakingly building a contender is not available to Phil Savage.

Phil Savage must succeed in a smaller window and against greater odds. However, the fact that his window is smaller and his odds are greater does not mean that he is exempt from such expectations; other coaches and GMs have had more success in less time. One only needs look at the Saints or the Jets to see that.

by NickFantana on Sep 11, 2007 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Great post. Truly interesting -- lots to discuss in here.

I agree that intimidation and appearance are big parts of football culture, and Crennel's aw-shucks demeanor ain't gonna scare anybody, nor inspire his own players.

by JulioBernazard on Sep 12, 2007 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

All good points.

A lot of this is due to the relative schedules of each sport.

I have to agree here. If there was a week of downtime between baseball games, I imagine that clubhouse going-ons would be much more newsworthy.

Given the hellstorm provoked by the Browns loss this weekend, it seems to me that football does not lend itself to ANY long-term considerations. I sense that you and I might agree that this is unfortunate, indeed even foolhardy.

100%. 100%.

by nickjs21 on Sep 12, 2007 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Hey, you're right. We should never do anything new. So let's go back ten years and play the game without the Cover 2 and the zone blitz. As a matter of fact, leather helmets for all. Sometimes trying something unheard of works. Or maybe you don't like the forward pass.

You have no idea what actually happened. You are content to bash the coach because you are frustrated and lack the brain power to think through the problem. Give Belichick this team last week and we still lose to a Pittsburgh team that outclassed us at nearly every position. Or could you not see that...amateur?

At least I wasn't born in Denver

by fwembt on Sep 11, 2007 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Turk, it's nice to see we got some discussion going in here. If Jay could call someone a moron and some photoshop would come into play, I'd feel at home.

One could say we demolished the bathroom.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 4:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

You know, I missed out on the bathroom demolishing thing.

But yeah, I think we should really start getting these guys some well-deserved traffic.

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Turk,I agree with you about this site.

Chris does a great job and doesn't seem to get the credit for it. I hope the LGT guys will give it some time.

Hard to do when that other team is so exciting, but this site deserves attention.

Keep up the good work Chris.

by Cactus Jack on Sep 11, 2007 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

3rd here. LGT is the first site I hit everyday, and this one is second. I'm guilty of being a reader once I learned of the site from LGT about a year ago.

by dvd1204 on Sep 11, 2007 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I found LGT first too. I hope that DBN gets the same support eventually.

I used to go to the Scout/IndiansInk/OrangeandBrownReport site to vent and get the most up to date news, but I'm now a total convert to the SB Nation sites.

I do wish someone would take on creating a Cavs site.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 11, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Nice to see some of LGTers here.

The only thing that has me going on this is the timing. What in 18 minutes of game time could Savage and Romeo see that they didn't already know about Frye?

the thing i keep coming back to: WHAT WERE THEY DOING ALL OFF SEASON??

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 11, 2007 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

That is why I voted no on the front page poll. We should have traded him in the off/preseason or nopt at all. I agree completely... it was a what you see is what you get situation, and I'm not sure what else they expected out of him. Plus, this could have jut been an off game. Even then, I can't see him being anything but a good backup at best for some team.

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I agree with this as well, but the problem is the other options. They were just trying to buy their time until the bye week.

by dvd1204 on Sep 11, 2007 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Yeah. It does make you go "Hmm."

I'm not sure where I stand on the "BQ should start" issue tho.

(Another new person from LGT.)

by doowop on Sep 11, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

It is pretty clear IMO that we don't have an NFL quarterback. We didn't last year and we don't right now. We might very soon, but as of right now, we just don't.

Furthermore, we didn't have one 3 years ago or even 8 years ago. That's why most Brown's fans have a love-hate relationship with these guys. We want the hope of the shiny and new to bring us somthing we haven't seen since Bernie. When it is obvious that the current contender doesn't have it we move to the next. I have no problem with this philosophy as long as that contender gets an adequate amount of time to prove himself (adequate is subjective, but I feel a season should be enough to determine if someone at least has the potential).

As far as Romeo goes. I think it is too soon to call if he can cut it as an NFL coach and firing him this year does very little to progress this organization further. He too needs adequate time to prove himself. IMO a coach needs 3-4 years and in Romeo's case I'd give him at least 4 given the state of the team when he took over.

by dvd1204 on Sep 11, 2007 5:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Well said all-around. I can't disagree with anything you said there.

by Turkmenbashi on Sep 11, 2007 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Since I'm going a little crazy with the posts today, let me just get my QB position out there. I'm in favor of starting Quinn right now, and in fact I was hoping he would get the call for the Steelers game as well. I was not in this camp until after game 3 of the preseason, and it wasn't based on the numbers that quinn put up, but rather the fact that IMO he looked the most ready. He appeared to go through his progressions quickly and was not rattled at all. He displayed an "escapability" factor of which I was not aware. Finally it was clear that none of the other choices showed that they had nearly the same poise and grasp of the game as he did. Thus I concluded, Brady is just as good now and most likely better than anything else we could put out there.

That said, I understand the decision to wait and can't even fault it given the ridiculous early season schedule we have. Give the OL a little more time to gel and protect the kid just a little longer. His time will come.

by dvd1204 on Sep 11, 2007 5:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

My bottom line is not the best chance to win the game next week, or even the best chance to have the best record this year, but the overall development of Quinn. That should be the number one priority.

For better or worse though, Romeo has his job to think of, and I don't think he can survive another 4 win season.

All that said, the way the rest of the team looked (running game, pass defense, special teams) on the first game against a divisional team that has done the same thing for 35 years, there is a lot of anger that gets directed at the coaching staff. It really is almost unforgivable. I hope to remember how I felt on Sunday... whenever Romeo does leave Cleveland, I won't feel bad about it.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 11, 2007 5:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I went to espn's home page to see if they highlighted Clevetown's latest sports fiasco.

Then I saw the headline "Sorry, Charlie."

Uh-oh, I thought.

I had a big laugh, however, when I realized it was a feature on Notre Dame's lousy season prospects.

Funny.

by ploni on Sep 11, 2007 6:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I just saw John Clayton on espn.

My question for him is quite specific: Is Charlie Frye an NFL-caliber starting quarterback?

If his answer is no, then the Browns are wiggling out of a difficult, complex situation not entirely of their making.

If his answer is yes, the Browns organization is in much worse difficulty than I imagined.

by ploni on Sep 11, 2007 6:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

YaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!

Good riddance, even Derek Anderson is better than you.

by Zorgon on Sep 11, 2007 6:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I'm pleased we got a 6th round pick. I was thinking we wouldn't get anything higher than that for either Anderson or Frye. That said, I think this move reflects the total clusterf#$@ which is going on in the Browns organization - in the coaching staff, the front office, and the communication between the two. How can you let your head coach choose a quarterback on a coin flip? How can you say a guy is your man, let him play a quarter of football, and then trade him. How can you refuse to trade a guy during the final week of training camp, when teams rosters are more in flux and more capable of accomodating an addition, and instead trade him a week into the season when I really doubt it's possible to get full value in return? How can either the GM or coach let the team float through an entire week just "hoping" your only punter is ok enough to play in the season opener, an always huge symbolic game and an especially important game when it's against your long-time division rival? What kind of communication must be going on off the field if such total lack of communication is happening on the field? How can you hope to establish a positive rep with players when your organization appears so completely mismanaged?

I was ambivalent about Crennel after last season, a supporter of him before that. I've been a supporter of Savage, trusting that he had and was executing a plan. My support for both of them is now gone. Our organization looks like a joke, not just in the national media, but from people like us who follow and root for them all season and off-season. Go Browns. Go Tribe.

by APV on Sep 11, 2007 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

According to cleveland.com, Phil Savage said today that Anderson will start on Sunday with Quinn being #2 and Dorsey #3.

I don't like it. Put Quinn in there now, he's the only guy that looks like he knows what he's doing on the field. Anderson hasn't shown anything in the preseason games and he wasn't that great against the Steelers. I know we have some tough defenses coming up, but the Bengals defense should be a good one to start against.

by Buckeye Brad on Sep 11, 2007 6:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Put Quinn in there now, he's the only guy that looks like he knows what he's doing on the field.

All we have to do is wait for our opponents to put their third-string defense on the field, and we'll have them right where we want them.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Yes, I know he played against the backup defenders. Of course, he was playing with backup teammates on offense, too.

The point is that Quinn looks like a leader on the field and with his teammates. He made the right throws, taking what the defense gave him, and showed off a good arm and good accuracy, and neither Frye nor Anderson possess both. I know Notre Dame is always overhyped, but this kid started there for four years and dealt with all the pressure that came with it.

So, yes, watching the Browns preseason games, Quinn looked like he knew what he was doing on the field better than Anderson and Frye. He could read the defenses and made the right adjustments. I'm not saying that he can start in the NFL and be great right away, but I have more faith in our team with him at QB than with Anderson. And if he's our QB of the future, why not start him now? How is standing on the sidelines watching Anderson play poorly going to help him?

by Buckeye Brad on Sep 11, 2007 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Thanks for shifting some LGT conversation over here :D I was going to post my own Frye trading topic, but when I got home, I saw that this one already had over 40 comments =o Thus, I promoted it to the main part of the site (first time I've ever done that to a diary I believe) and will post my personal reaction tonight or tomorrow :D

BTW, thanks for the Anderson link. I feel though that as soon as Anderson blows it once in the game, Quinn will come in. It's almost "why bother" putting Anderson in? We'll see...

by Chris Pokorny on Sep 11, 2007 7:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Best of luck, Chris.

by ploni on Sep 11, 2007 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I am with the majority here. Frye is not good and I hated the pick when we made it. To me it seemed like a move to appease the fans with a local boy since we were still in need of a QB at that time. I am pleased that we received anything in return for him.

As for Quinn, I don't like the whole rushing the kid argument. A guy is either good or he is not. Being forced into action shouldn't change that. Tim Couch didn't fail because he played in game 2. He failed because he wasn't good and cried like a baby after a little booing. Let's get Brady in there and get him some experience. Our team is not as bad as we looked against the Steelers, so I think there is no reason to think he can't get a few wins under his belt this year.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 11, 2007 7:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I think that's revisionist history on Couch. I'm no diehard Couch fan, but I definitely remember him leading some comebacks and re-entering games after taking hit after hit. He even on a few occasions looked like a real NFL leader, something you'd be hard pressed to say about Frye or Anderson. Couch may or may not ever been a good NFL quarterback, but the abuse he took as the Browns quarterback from opposing defensive units certainly accelerated the injuries to his elbow and shoulder and exit from the NFL.

by APV on Sep 11, 2007 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I agree with the revisionist history argument here. Tim Couch was pummeled by opposing defenses but he was a gamer. We never put in an offensive scheme for him that came close to replicating the schemes he was successful with at Kentucky and capitalizing on the skills he did have. Couch was pretty much set up to fail from the beginning. There was no continuity in his coaching, the fans always expected more, the team itself was set up to fail because of the late decision on selecting ownership by the NFL and the poor decisions to hire Policy and Clark as the first front office. The Browns 2.0 have been little but a debacle since they began, and Tim Couch is a good, talented but misused quarterback who got thrown under the bus.

When does my team get to be the team o'destiny?

by woodsmeister on Sep 11, 2007 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I kind of know what a Pittsburg Pirates fan feels like.

by nickjs21 on Sep 11, 2007 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

It's not really revisionist history if I never thought he was a promising pro in the first place, but there is no way for me to prove that. I have seen too many college quarterbacks who played in a pass friendly system in college that have struggled in the pros. Kentucky's spread offense certainly contributed to Couch's pro prospects. Tailoring an offense to where Couch could succeed would be like what Spurrier tried to do with Washington and bringing in Danny Wuerrfel. Problem was that the system doesn't work against defenses as fast as they are in the NFL. Couch was not good enough to run a pro style offense.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 11, 2007 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

This showed me that Savage is in over his head. Anyone who solely blames Crennel for this is flat out wrong (and I'm not a big Crennel supporter right now either). This was the most embarrassing moment in franchise history (or at least for the 44 years Ive been alive) other than when Modell moved the team (which wasn't our fault). Savage looked like a friggin fool in that press conference today and clearly didn't have answers to a number of basic questions that were asked like, um, why did you mess with this guy for ALL of preseason if you were gonna dump him after 1.33 quarters (Charlie was done with 9:55 left in the 2nd)? It's a complete absolute meltdown...

And to think of the arrogance he was spouting off a few weeks back about the abysmal shape that Butcher Davis left the franchise...wow.

by ChicagoJohn on Sep 11, 2007 9:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Savage's inability to right the ship does not mean that Butch Davis did not leave the franchise a reeling mess of stink requiring a whole bevy of stablehands to muck out the stalls.

When does my team get to be the team o'destiny?

by woodsmeister on Sep 11, 2007 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Agreed. Although my history as a Browns fan only stretches back 23 years (I moved to Cleveland when I was 5).

by APV on Sep 11, 2007 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Who has the records of rookie starting QBs?

I know Alex Smith was 2-5 with SF in 2005.
David Carr was 4-12 for Houston in 2002.
Couch didn't win many.

Are there any success stories in the last 10 years? If so, what is the ratio of success to the total and how many rookie QB starts have there been?

I am looking for some information on which to base the timing of the decision to start Quinn.

by palcal on Sep 11, 2007 9:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Surely you haven't forgotten about the success stories of Vince Young, Ben Roethlisberger, or even Kyle Orton?

by Chris Pokorny on Sep 11, 2007 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

All players with a significant level of talent surrounding them.

by NickFantana on Sep 11, 2007 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

especially good RBs.

by JulioBernazard on Sep 12, 2007 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I did. I notice that Young had a lower passing rating than Frye last year and about the same as Anderson. Orton's rookie rating was even lower.

Roethlisberger is the exception that proves the rule. Is Quinn another exception?

by palcal on Sep 11, 2007 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Byron Leftwich 4-6
Matt Lienhart 3-7 (was hurt in second to last game and was held out of finale.)
Eli Manning 1-6
Peyton Manning 3-13
Jay Cutler 2-3
Kyle Boller 6-4

Those are the ones that I could think of...

by Bernie19Kosar on Sep 12, 2007 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

please do not throw Brady to the wolves. I like him as our future QB and don't want to see him get freakin killed like another young QB we got as the #1 pick in 99. Until we get a decent line and supporting cast, let him learn by observation!

by tribefan29 on Sep 11, 2007 11:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

The line protected well this past week. Most of the sacks were because of the QB's inability to get rid of the ball in time. 6 seconds is more than enough time for a NFL QB to find an open reciever or throw the ball away...

by Bernie19Kosar on Sep 12, 2007 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Sitting Quinn gains nothing other than delaying his growth as an NFL QB. Do you think that his sitting on the bench is somehow going to transform him into a better QB? No, it only delays the process. It actually delays the process in two ways: 1) He receives fewer practice reps as the 2nd team QB & 2) He gets zero LIVE GAME REPS. NFL QB's don't learn by "observation". They need reps, LIVE REPS, lots of LIVE REPS.

Guys that are great players have the IT factor, guys that are so-so players or lousy players don't. My guess is that Quinn has IT & its killing him sitting on the sidelines.

Marino, Moon, Kelly, Aikman & Manning all played as rookies. They had IT.

Put Quinn in now. He's the future, not Derek Anderson.

Terry O.

by TerryO on Sep 12, 2007 8:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Moon played for 6 years in the CFL, winning 5 Grey Cups and setting passing records galore. While I'm aware that the CFL is not the NFL, they do run wide-open pro style offenses by necessity (3 downs instead of 4).

Kelly played in the WFL - again, maybe not up to the speed of the NFL, but also pro style offenses.

These two quarterbacks do not prove your theory. The other three might.

When does my team get to be the team o'destiny?

by woodsmeister on Sep 12, 2007 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Whoops - Kelly played in the USFL, not the WFL.

When does my team get to be the team o'destiny?

by woodsmeister on Sep 12, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

The WFL's offenses were not as sophisticated as Charley Weise's 2006 Notre Dame offense.

A good gauge of Quinn's value is the performance of the 2007 ND squad without him.

Terry O.

by TerryO on Sep 12, 2007 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

all we have heard about quinn since before the draft is that he is the most "nfl-ready" qb out there. he has basically been in a pro system the last two years under weiss, and he seemed to know what he was doing in the preseason. let the kid play

by The Animal on Sep 12, 2007 9:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Another Possibility

It may not be the Savage bandwagon we should be jumping off of. The man has done a great job as the GM and should continue to do so.

The indecision seems to be on Romeo's part, perhaps Savage made the decision for him by trading Frye. I mean this is a man who was flipping coins to determine our QB, that's not Savage's fault, it's Romeo's.

by ShaneRollins on Sep 12, 2007 10:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

After sleeping on it all, and reading some more of the commentary, I have somewhat come to peace with the decision to trade Frye, even given the timing.

The only real mistake made was that the Browns refused to bring in a veteran QB to start for a year... I know this doesn't always go as planned, but bringing in Trent Green, Drew Bledsoe or Brad Johnson would have made for the most ideal situation. He would give the team a much better chance to win than Frye or Anderson, and he would be a real valuable mentor to Quinn, rather than Ken Dorsey. The vet could have put out a respectable performance from the QB position for 5 to 8 weeks, or maybe the entire season.

Now, that's what should have happened, as far as what did happen- I'm thinking (without a ton of actual evidence) that the reason the Browns traded Frye when they did was because of Seattle's need for a backup QB. They were talking to Dorsey. Savage probably realized that the Browns were better off with Anderson and Dorsey than with Frye and Anderson. Should he have realized this before the season? sure. But, the reality is that they planned to bring back Dorsey the entire time. They didn't cut him until the very end of camp, and there always seemed to be an understanding that Dorsey would be a phone call away, especially because Quinn really liked him. Savage, seeing that they might loose Dorsey and seeing an opportunity to actually get something for value (6th round pick) for with only losing really nothing.

Bottom line, I'm glad the Romeo and Savage didn't compound their mistakes by trying to stick with Frye for "continuity" or whatever. Maybe they should have realized it sooner, but they finally realized that in the Browns offense, Frye was never going to produce at an average rate.

I'm trying to see the good in this, and not get too worked up. I live in Cincinnati, so I'm really hoping the Browns can put up at least a respectable showing against the Bungles this week. At least the expectations can't be any lower for this week.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 12, 2007 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Given what happened with Dilfer, how realistic was it that they could hire a good experienced quarterback?

The Browns already had 4 QBs on the roster; adding a 5th would add even more confusion.

It's interesting that over the last years the fans are just as confused as the team whether Frye or Anderson is better.

Savage mentioned that if Frye had another bad game, his value would plummet so he had to act before that happened.

by palcal on Sep 12, 2007 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

I think its fair to say the entire time it was clear to every coach/gm/fan/analyst/observer that neither Frye nor Anderson were NFL starters. One or both could have been traded or cut and nobody would have cared except the Frye and Anderson families.

Sure, Trent Dilfer didn't work out too well, but he was passable and lasted 11 games until the playoffs were out of reach and Dilfer started to show his weaknesses, giving way to the rookie to see what he could do (Frye). The only real failure in that plan was that Frye never had the talent to succeed.

In a way, maybe it doesn't matter. I'll listen to the argument that its best for Quinn to start right away (the Peyton Manning/Troy Aikman model--- or the Couch/David Carr model). However, the Browns have been committed to not throwing him in there right away, instead wanting him to sit for awhile (the Carson Palmer model). But they didn't execute that plan well enough. Palmer had a solid vetran in front of him in Kitna, while Quinn had 2 1/2 stiffs in front of him during camp and now through a week and a half during the season. It is the failure to execute this plan that frustrates me the most.

As far as Frye's value dropping farther if we would have kept him- like I said before, it is commendable that Savage pulled the trigger when he did, swallowing his pride and getting a draft pick out of it, while getting the third stringer he and Quinn would rather have around.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 12, 2007 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Excellent response, Dayton Dogg.

This Dawg smells disaster on the horizon for Quinn (Couch model); but I really hope I'm wrong.
The guy is a natural-born champion, but is that going to keep him from getting his ass kicked?
I dunno.

DP

by oddjobdrummer on Sep 12, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Well said. IMO your analysis is extremley accurate. I also think they hoped to follow the Manning/Aikman model but given the hold out and the early schedule feared a Couch/Carr outcome and thus tried to slide by with the Palmer model which they were unprepared to implement.

by dvd1204 on Sep 12, 2007 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Right on.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 12, 2007 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

From cleveland.com, Crennel says that Quinn may get some playing time if Anderson struggles.

Browns coach Romeo Crennel said Wednesday he wouldn't hesitate to put rookie Brady Quinn in against the Bengals if starter Derek Anderson struggles.

"I think it just depends on how the game goes," said Crennel. "If there's evidence, or I get the feeling that things can be straightened out, you can give the guy a chance. But if things can't get straightened out, then, I think you have to do something quickly."

But he said he expects Anderson to perform well.

"I expect him to play the way he played against Kansas City (bringing the Browns back from a 14-point fourth quarter deficit to win 31-28 in OT) when we put him in the game last year. He did win that game for us. I don't know if we remember that but he did play pretty decently in that game.

"Then, in the following week against a tough Pittsburgh team, he started off really good with his reads and delivering the ball. We didn't help him any because we dropped a lot of balls (seven) but he did start off pretty good in that game. I did tell him this morning that that's what I expect out of him."

Crennel said it would be good to get Quinn a few series before he starts a game.

"I think the game situation dictates that," he said. "If the opportunity arises, it will be good to get him in there and get his feet wet. But you just can't say that the opportunity is going to come up."

He said Quinn still has a lot to learn, including identifying coverages and blitzes.

"Those kinds of things will help him be a more complete player," said Crennel.

by Buckeye Brad on Sep 12, 2007 5:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

OK, that was supposed to show up in a gray box. Obviously I did something wrong. Anyways, that's the transcript of the article from the site.

by Buckeye Brad on Sep 12, 2007 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Frye dealt to Seattle

Just saw the article from Mary Kay Cabot. It's good to hear that Anderson has a short leash, but I hope Quinn doesn't play. At this point, at the very least, they could give Quinn a full week of practice with the first team before throwing him out there. The overall goal should be Quinn's development and not the success of the 2007 Browns. Hopefully Crennel and Savage haven't totally lost sight of that.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 12, 2007 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs