sgm405

"Im not gonna debate ya Jerry" Once again your pinion is stated as fact. We all understand you think Charlie stinks. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it now. It is my opinion that you are wrong. Time will show who is right. Ok? We disagree with you. Your red cape in front of the bull rants every time someone mentions Charlie are amusing. You don't disappoint in needing to state your "facts" at every turn. It simply is unnecessary for you to respond to every positive response as to CF's abilities. If the moderators could perform a search of your posts, I would expect a large percentage are about him. And they come in waves of 5 or 6 posts as to how bad he is. You have an unhealthy fascination with Mr. Frye. So, UADavid, answer my question and present an argument. I've presented statistics to back my claim - you simply say I'm wrong. So tell me...1) What makes you think Frye is a good NFL QB?2) What does Frye do especially well?

The big difference between Manning and Frye is that Manning had the tools/raw skills to be a big time QB coming out of college...he just needed game experience. Frye doesn't have the tools...he simply doesn't. And I've still received no response to my 2nd question...

It did feel Good and I say it again if your not a Zips Fan get off the site. And you grow up! Trying to someone to grow up is just as childish What an embarrassment to Zips fans...dude, shut your mouth. If an OSU fan or any other school's fan comes over and wants to discuss an upcoming game, and does so in a classy manner - as Cicero did - why not just engage in good discussion? Quit making Zips fans look bad with your idiotic behavior.

It's funny...Buckeyes fans are bashed constantly as a whole on this forum year round for lacking class. Then one comes over and appears to be looking to simply discuss the matchup and he gets ripped and ridiculed. Kind of hypocritical, no?

PEYTON MANNINGYear One - 71Year Two - 91CHARLIE FRYEYear One - 70Year Two - 72See the difference? And if you know so much more than me, simply answer my question...I'll even put it in BOLD so it can't be missed...WHAT DOES CHARLIE FRYE DO ESPECIALLY WELL?

I understand the line has been bad...the running game has been inconsistent...the receivers have had drops. Anyone can see that Frye doesn't have a Pro Bowl lineup around him. But I also don't think that he is free of blame. And I think my second question is the most important. What does Charlie Frye do especially well?I've honestly asked it about 5-7 different times, and I've never received a response. And if nobody can come up with an answer, is he really a NFL starting caliber QB?

UADavid, and all others who don't think I know what I'm talking about. Let's look at the numbers...CHARLIE FRYECareer Statistics------------------20 G, 63%, 3456 YDS, 14 TD, 23 INT, 71 RAT2006 Season------------------13 G, 64%, 2454 YDS, 10 TD, 17 INT, 72 RATKEY CHARLIE FRYE STATS IN 2006--------------------------------------4th Quarter - 59%, 2 TD, 7 INT, 56 RATPasses Thrown Behind the Line or Under 10 Yards - 298 (75%)Passes Thrown Over 10 Yards - 95 (42%)As a Starter - 4-9So I ask those who claim that I don't know what I'm talking about the following questions:1) How do you defend that performance?2) What does Frye do especially well?

With all that you "know" why don't you pick the winning lotto numbers, buy an island, and live happily ever after with gp1. Anderson, the "career" backup has played in 5 total games over his one year career. You don't know "s%#t" about either player. You "think" they are bad football players and you are entitled to your opinion. I think you're wrong and time will tell. Please stop confusing fact for opinion. Derek Anderson was drafted in 2005...from 2005-Present is his CAREER...he has always been a BACKUP. So yes, he is a career backup to this point. Is that really that hard to follow?

Actually, I still feel like Anderson is the better QB with far more upside. DA played just as well as Frye did in the preseason - problem is, he didn't outplay him, and the tie goes to the current starter. It's not that it matters...Quinn will be starting by midseason.

Wow, you weren't joking. You really do believe that what college team you cheer for is tied to your success in life. Seriously, wow. I won't even begin to guess how out of touch with reality you must be. As for my lifestyle, you don't even know what I do or why I do it. I could've done a lot of things as well, but chose the profession that I always wanted to do. And I know one thing - it's a hell of a lot more rewarding than building a skyscraper would be. But to each and their own guess. I sincerely hope your plans work out and your dreams are accomplished. I just hope you're more intelligent with your planning for that than you are your theory that success in life is somehow tied to being a collegiate sports fan.

I've been watching football for 25 years. I guess I still dont' fucking "know football".Once again, another opinionated arse can't be satisfied with stating their opinion. Instead, anyone who has a different one is "a joke" and "doesn't know football". Seen both under center? Not yet. If you think a few series in pre-season means anything, YOU don't don't know football. I do apologize for the tone...it just peeves me that people but on "Zips blinders" in analyzing Frye. But I do sincerely apologize. With that said...I know the following:- That in 2 years, Charlie Frye is not much better now than he was in his first pro game. And that's not good. - That Derek Anderson performed just as well, if not better than Charlie Frye last year when starting.- That Derek Anderson is nothing more than a career backup.- That the last two notes say a lot about Charlie Frye as a pro QB. - That nobody has ever answered my question regarding Frye - What does he do especially well? - That Brady Quinn has more talent than any other QB on the Browns roster...and that it's not even close. - That the QB that gives the Browns the best chance to win ballgames is Brady Quinn, and that it'll only take half the season (if that) for them to realize it. I don't like BQ...at all. But I want wins for the Browns, and the best player at QB. And that's not C Frye.

Both posted at 10:31...must've had you beat by a few seconds!

Rack that

So if you go/went to Akron and you wear OSU stuff, you're going nowhere in life? Hmm...well, I graduated from Akron and own some OSU stuff (had family members that went there, as I've mentioned in the past)...I have a full-time job that pays me quite well, live in a great apartment, and have an amazing girlfriend. I'm doing pretty well if I must say so myself. So...well...you're wrong lol. We've been through this whole conversation before, but to say someone won't go anywhere in life because of the college football team they cheer for...well, I just hope you said that tongue in cheek, because otherwise you are far out of touch with reality.

The real joke is the people who actually believe Charlie Frye is the best QB on the Browns roster. Sure, he was named the starter - because it's better for Quinn in the long run to not play right away. But anyone who knows football and has seen both of those two under center that actually thinks Frye is the better QB is absolutely fooling themselves. I'm not a fan of Quinn...trust me...but Frye's simply keeping the seat warm for half a season until Quinn is ready. It says a lot about Frye when a career backup (Anderson) and a rookie with two preseason games under his belt (Quinn) almost (and probably should) start over him.

Good to read...Hixon has the size and ability to be a very good pro...let's hope he can get and stay healthy for an entire year to prove that.

Maybe because the mistakes he made were rookie mistakes?Problem is, Charlie isn't a rookie and shouldn't be making those mistakes anymore. True. Charlie shouldn't have run at the end of the half. The fumble/TD thing was as much Harrison's fault as it was Charlie's, but it shouldn't have happened. The running thing is just Charlie's nature; when he was at Akron, it was his job to score by any means necessary because much of the players surrounding him couldn't, and the same was true at Cleveland for a while. How many rushing TD's did Reuben Droughns have for the Browns? This Browns team has gotten better. The O-line has improved even with their injuries, and K2 and B. Edwards have matured a bit. Jamal Lewis seems like a better RB than Droughns. Frye isn't the only option out there on the field, but he has yet to realise it and makes mistakes trying to do too much. All that being said, he is clearly the best QB on the team at this time, and so should start. Will Quinn become better than him eventually? I have no idea, Quinn has only been in practice for less than a week. Frye is still the man, for now. "Clearly the best quarterback on the team"...????You mean the guy who cost the Browns 10-14 points by himself on two bonehead plays? If Charlie Frye is "clearly the best" QB the Browns have, they're in a world of trouble this season.

Maybe because the mistakes he made were rookie mistakes?Problem is, Charlie isn't a rookie and shouldn't be making those mistakes anymore.

I am not a math major, nor do I fully understand the QB rating system. However, that can't be right. Frye is 12-15, Anderson is 7-16. Neither of them threw a TD or a pick, yet Anderson has a higher rating. ???? Heh. I just realized that I reversed the completions and the attempts. I had Anderson going 16 for 7. lolHere are the fixed ratings:Frye - 100.56Anderson - 58.33Dorsey - 81.71That better resembles how it looked like each one played during the game. Frye was clearly better than the competition in this game. Sure, his mistake at the end of the half likely cost them 3 points, but it's preseason and it's not like the others did much better. I'm sorry, but his gift TD for KC and horrid clock management towards the end are inexcusable. He may end up starting, but he'll just be keeping the seat warm for a few weeks, no matter how much I hate Brady Quinn.

Jacksonville has Leftwich and Garrard, both better than Frye. KC has Brock Huard, who did pretty ell replacing Trent Green. Tampa has Garcia, who isn't what he used to be but is a former pro bowler and still pretty good. Baltimore has McNair (better now) and Smith (better prospect for the future). Detroit has Kitna, who isn't great but is better. Maybe Atlanta...maybe Minnesota...but even on those two teams he wouldn't be a clear-cut favorite. Jacksonville was rumored to be dumping Leftwich in the offseason, and their starting QB situation is said to be "open" going into this preseason. They were even in the market for Cullpepper before signing Tim Couch...yes, this is the same Tim Couch that blew in Cleveland.Kansas City has Damon Huard, not his brother Brock. Right now, he wouldn't even be their starter - Brodie Croyle is listed atop their depth chart and is said to be having a far better camp than the 34-year-old Huard so far this year.Tampa Bay is going to start Garcia. This is the same Garcia that got run out of Cleveland because he was so bad. The same Garcia they couldn't wait to get rid of. If the Bucs had that much faith in him, would they really have pursued Plummer and still invest money in Luke McCown? (BTW, they also have Chris Simms and Bruce Gradkowski on their roster). For the record, they also looked into Cullpepper when he was dumped by Miami and picked up by OaklandSo, to say that Frye wouldn't have a chance to start over Leftwich/Garrard, Croyle, and Garcia is nuts. I'd take him over this bunch of stiffs in a hearbeat. 2007 Statistics------------------Damon Huard - 61%, 11 TD, 1 INT, 98 RATByron Leftwich - 59%, 7 TD, 5 INT, 79 RAT (58/15/5/89 the year before when healthy)Jeff Garcia - 62%, 10 TD, 2 INT, 96 RATCharlie Frye - 64%, 10 TD, 17 INT, 72 RATSoooo how exactly is Frye better than those guys?And again - What does Charlie Frye do especially well?

No, but others have...I do apologize for pinning that on you. Sure, his stats may compare to other QB's first 16 starts. But again - the ones that were successful had raw skills and ability that Frye does not, IMO, possess. I'll ask again - what does Frye do especially well?

1) Charlie Frye is not a rookie anymore...why do we continue to talk about him like he is?2) Charlie Frye's first 16 starts and Peyton Manning's first 16 starts aren't compared because Manning had obvious raw talent and ability. Charlie does not. 3) I don't "bash" Frye. I give my honest opinion of him - he's a backup QB in the NFL (certainly nothing to be ashamed of, by the way). 4) I base my opinion on the following: Overall stats and performance and overall raw skills and ability. Let's look (again) at his NFL ranks in 2007:RAT - 27thPCT - 6thYDS - 23rdYPA - 27thTD - 27thINT - 27thSCK - 26thHe doesn't have a strong enough arm to accurately throw down field...his accuracy isn't too great...his awareness is horrid as he often runs into sacks...he forces passes...he just doesn't have much aside from being a gritty competitor. I will always appreciate and respect the hell out of what he did in Akron, but I just don't see him as a very good NFL QB.Seriously, aside from being tough, what does he do especially well? And if you have to think for longer than a few seconds to answer that question, aren't you just fooling yourself and letting your "Zips" blinders get the best of you?

Jacksonville has Leftwich and Garrard, both better than Frye. KC has Brock Huard, who did pretty ell replacing Trent Green. Tampa has Garcia, who isn't what he used to be but is a former pro bowler and still pretty good. Baltimore has McNair (better now) and Smith (better prospect for the future). Detroit has Kitna, who isn't great but is better. Maybe Atlanta...maybe Minnesota...but even on those two teams he wouldn't be a clear-cut favorite.

I disagree...he at least gets a chance to start here. How many other places would that happen...Atlanta maybe...where else?

I hope you're right. I like Charlie and hope he's the Browns QB.Your response is a little strong, however. I don't see anybody here bashing Charlie.Sorry for not seeing your original post. I haven't been on the board lately, and yes, I get the picture. Thank you. And here's Frye's NFL experience:1) 6-12 overall as Browns starting QB.2) Has never finished in the top 10 in any major category...did finish in the bottom 5 in numerous categories. 3) 4th quarter play in 2006 - 2 TD, 7 INT, 59%, 56 RATThat's not to say Anderson is better or not...but it's certainly no slam-dunk that Charlie is the starter. And if Anderson is the garbage player so many of you make him out to be, shouldn't Charlie have been named the clear cut starter by now? If he was that good, he would be...but in a two-man race for starting QB, neither has shown enough to grab the job. Why?They're both backup NFL QB's...but at least Anderson can throw down field.