Frye is #1

[Dr Z]

sourceIn Quinn's absence, Frye, Anderson compete for starting jobBy Len PasquarelliESPN.comUpdated: August 7, 2007, 8:50 AM ETWhile first-round draft choice Brady Quinn continues his training camp holdout, Cleveland Browns' quarterback Charlie Frye is simply trying to hold on to the starting job that he owned for much of the past 1½ seasons.And at least nominally, at this point, he's succeeding.To comply with NFL rules, Browns head coach Romeo Crennel issued the team's first depth chart on Monday, and Frye, a third-year veteran, occupied the top rung. Crennel cautioned strongly, however, that the depth chart is barely worth the paper on which it was printed, and would not even commit to Frye as his starter in Saturday night's preseason opener.Crennel even joked that he might toss a coin before the game to determine whether Frye or challenger Derek Anderson, also a third-year pro, would get the starting nod. Apparently, the competition for the starting job in the regular season remains that close.Uncertainty at quarterback is nothing new for the Browns, who have employed five different opening-day starters in the last five years. And through three dozen practices in the spring and now in the first 10 days of training camp, neither Frye nor Anderson has separated himself enough yet to have been vested with the No. 1 job.PD article on same topic

[zip81]

Certainly no endorsement for the starting job....but good to see Charlie hanging in there.Quinn has his problems; doesn't he?However, according to The Plain Dealer, they didn't seem that far apart. Hard to believe such a pittance is keeping them from signing a deal.

[skip-zip]

Ok...I've said this before....The Browns want to put pressure on Frye to compete and get better. That's all this is about. Think about it. Crennel and Savage are on their last chance in Cleveland. Do you think they have any thoughts at all of resting their fortunes on a virtually inexperienced 6th round draft pick, who can't move, behind a still-struggling offensive line?Here's Anderson's NFL experience:1) Played good in the 2nd half against the Chiefs. The same game in which Charlie had a great first half. Although, before the winning drive, Anderson made a horrible read and threw an interception that nearly cost us the game.2) Took the offense in for a touchdown at "garbage time" in Pittsburgh. It was our only score of the game.3) Got pretty darn close to throwing as many interceptions as completions against Tampa Bay. Before training camp began, Crennel said that Frye had a "leg up", and now that camp observers are talking about Frye performing better than Anderson, Crennel has no response? Getting the picture yet? I've seen national publications already that tell the real story, which is that Anderson is a long shot to get the starting job. Charlie would have to fall apart, and Anderson would have to improve dramatically. Neither is happening. I know there's a few Frye Bashers on here who'd like to think differently. But, Derek Anderson would struggle just to be the clipboard holder on most NFL teams. And Savage and Crennel know it, regardless of what they might say.

[zip81]

Ok...I've said this before....The Browns want to put pressure on Frye to compete and get better. That's all this is about. Think about it. Crennel and Savage are on their last chance in Cleveland. Do you think they have any thoughts at all of resting their fortunes on a virtually inexperienced 6th round draft pick, who can't move, behind a still-struggling offensive line?Here's Anderson's NFL experience:1) Played good in the 2nd half against the Chiefs. The same game in which Charlie had a great first half. Although, before the winning drive, Anderson made a horrible read and threw an interception that nearly cost us the game.2) Took the offense in for a touchdown at "garbage time" in Pittsburgh. It was our only score of the game.3) Got pretty darn close to throwing as many interceptions as completions against Tampa Bay. Before training camp began, Crennel said that Frye had a "leg up", and now that camp observers are talking about Frye performing better than Anderson, Crennel has no response? Getting the picture yet? I've seen national publications already that tell the real story, which is that Anderson is a long shot to get the starting job. Charlie would have to fall apart, and Anderson would have to improve dramatically. Neither is happening. I know there's a few Frye Bashers on here who'd like to think differently. But, Derek Anderson would struggle just to be the clipboard holder on most NFL teams. And Savage and Crennel know it, regardless of what they might say.

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.

[skip-zip]

Just wait. Keep watching this thread. They are out there somewhere. They will appear soon enough

[zip81]

Just wait. Keep watching this thread. They are out there somewhere. They will appear soon enough

Not on a Zip board!Traitors!!

[BZip_08]

Quinn ContractApparently they finally found a happy medium... Frye better start ahead of that pansy-boy... I have no opinion on this matter, obviously.

[g-mann17]

Quinn ContractApparently they finally found a happy medium... Frye better start ahead of that pansy-boy... I have no opinion on this matter, obviously.

Yay. Now the Taint can cry about not getting time because he wants to show his awesome taint ability.

[ZippyBoy]

Crennel even joked that he might toss a coin before the game to determine whether Frye or challenger Derek Anderson...

Does anyone believe that he was only joking?!?!? I think this may be the way Crennel has been coaching since arriving at Cleveland

[Buckzip]

Frye is the starter. Anderson being a 6th round pick has nothing to do with it.Between Frye and Anderson, Frye is better.Ever here of Tom Brady? He too was a 6th round pick.Most coaches will not name a starter early in training camp unless they have an experienced established starter. Crennel has to say it is a competition. That is what brings out the best in the players.

[skip-zip]

Buckzip. Mentioning that Anderson is a 6th round draft pick was not to say that he can't be a starter because of that. It was merely one of the credentials he has which leads one to conclude that the Browns braintrust will not bank their future on him. Your point about the coaching staff creating competition is correct. I mentioned that in the earlier thread as well. You must also be familiar with these types of situations.Remember...Tom Brady is an extreme rarity.

[Zipsrifle]

I'm pulling for Charlie. I would love nothing more than to have another successful Zip in the NFL. With that said, I won't feel bad for the guy if he doesn't start. He is worth Millions and is playing at an elite level. He's already made more money than I will ever dream of making and has done something that most boys dream about. As for BQ, I don't think he will be a concern until late in the season. He's missed a LOT of practice time and being the rookie, he needs to adjust to the NFL. I do think he will play late in the season if the Browns aren't winning though. People in Cleveland want a Savior like LeBron for the Browns and BQ is the flavor of the season.

[sgm405]

Ok...I've said this before....The Browns want to put pressure on Frye to compete and get better.  That's all this is about.  Think about it.  Crennel and Savage are on their last chance in Cleveland.  Do you think they have any thoughts at all of resting their fortunes on a virtually inexperienced 6th round draft pick, who can't move, behind a still-struggling offensive line?Here's Anderson's NFL experience:1) Played good in the 2nd half against the Chiefs.  The same game in which Charlie had a great first half.  Although, before the winning drive, Anderson made a horrible read and threw an interception that nearly cost us the game.2) Took the offense in for a touchdown at "garbage time" in Pittsburgh.  It was our only score of the game.3) Got pretty darn close to throwing as many interceptions as completions against Tampa Bay. Before training camp began, Crennel said that Frye had a "leg up", and now that camp observers are talking about Frye performing better than Anderson, Crennel has no response?  Getting the picture yet? I've seen national publications already that tell the real story, which is that Anderson is a long shot to get the starting job.  Charlie would have to fall apart, and Anderson would have to improve dramatically.  Neither is happening.  I know there's a few Frye Bashers on here who'd like to think differently.  But, Derek Anderson would struggle just to be the clipboard holder on most NFL teams.  And Savage and Crennel know it, regardless of what they might say.

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.

[ZippyBoy]

No matter who it is, they may be running for their lives every play like Charlie did last year:More Browns worriesFree-agent prize Steinbach exits field with knee injuryPosted: Tuesday August 7, 2007 8:04PMBEREA, Ohio (AP) -- Offensive lineman Eric Steinbach, the Browns' top free-agent acquisition, left practice Tuesday after he fell on his right knee.Steinbach was being examined by team doctors following Cleveland's afternoon practice, which took place indoors because of rain. He walked off the field with a trainer and did not return."I would say he bruised it," Browns coach Romeo Crennel said. "That's what I would say because we didn't have pads on inside and we were on the turf and he came down on the knee."The Browns, who have been cursed by injuries, particularly to their offensive line, can't afford to lose Steinbach, who signed a seven-year, $49.5 million contract in March.Cleveland signed Pro Bowl center LeCharles Bentley to a six-year, $36 million contract last season and he was injured on the first play of contact in training camp, tearing the patellar tendon in his left knee.Bentley has said his injured knee is about 70 percent and he hopes to join the team for practice by the end of the month. He hasn't given up on his goal of playing this season.The Browns thought they had some depth on their line for the first time in years, but announced last week that offensive tackle Ryan Tucker would be suspended for the first four games of the season because of steroid use.Crennel reported a list of injuries Tuesday, including linebacker Willie McGinest, who had tightness in his back Monday and was being evaluated by his doctor in Los Angeles.Wide receiver Tim Carter got hit on the thumb and missed practice.Steinbach's backup at left guard, Andrew Hoffman, got hit on his elbow and also was being evaluated.Source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/foot...s.steinbach.ap/

[Dr Z]

The best thing that could happen to Charlie is the Browns cut him today.Good points

[sgm405]

The best thing that could happen to Charlie is the Browns cut him today.Good points

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

[Ryno aka Menace]

Atlanta....Baltimore (McNair's days are numbered), and Detroit in my opinion.

[ZippyBoy]

How about Jacksonville (Leftwich, Garrard, and even Couch), Kansas City (Huard, Croyle), Minnesota (Jackson, Bollinger), Tampa Bay (Garcia, Gradkowski, and about 16 other worthless QBs)? Frye seems just as good as any of these players and they all have better offensive lines than Cleveland had last year!!!

[sgm405]

How about Jacksonville (Leftwich, Garrard, and even Couch), Kansas City (Huard, Croyle), Minnesota (Jackson, Bollinger), Tampa Bay (Garcia, Gradkowski, and about 16 other worthless QBs)? Frye seems just as good as any of these players and they all have better offensive lines than Cleveland had last year!!!

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.

[skip-zip]

SGM....once again, you forget to mention that Frye's numbers compare FAVORABLY, and even SURPASS the stats for the first 16 starts of the current starting QBs in the NFL, including Peyton Manning.Simple logic would say that, if your rationale is correct, that Indy should have given up on Peyton Manning??Why do you try to find ways to bash Charlie Frye? It just makes no sense, considering all of the circumstances that he has played under. Giving you every benefit of the doubt, the WORST conclusion anyone can come to at this point is that we "don't know" if Frye will ever be a star QB. Because, the stats show he's right on pace with the best in the league at this point in his career.And, although I pull for Charlie as a former Zip, I'm perfectly fine with saying that we "don't know" how good he will be. Because, there's no crystal ball to answer that question for us.

[sgm405]

SGM....once again, you forget to mention that Frye's numbers compare FAVORABLY, and even SURPASS the stats for the first 16 starts of the current starting QBs in the NFL, including Peyton Manning.Simple logic would say that, if your rationale is correct, that Indy should have given up on Peyton Manning??Why do you try to find ways to bash Charlie Frye? It just makes no sense, considering all of the circumstances that he has played under. Giving you every benefit of the doubt, the WORST conclusion anyone can come to at this point is that we "don't know" if Frye will ever be a star QB. Because, the stats show he's right on pace with the best in the league at this point in his career.And, although I pull for Charlie as a former Zip, I'm perfectly fine with saying that we "don't know" how good he will be. Because, there's no crystal ball to answer that question for us.

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?

[skip-zip]

Ok. Do you see "rookie" in anything I said? He compares favorably, and in many cases better, than the other starters in the NFL in their first 16 starts. You choose to ignore that, ignore the NFL's strong historical data on QBs in their first few years, and draw your own conclusions. You certainly have a right to do so.

[sgm405]

Ok. Do you see "rookie" in anything I said? He compares favorably, and in many cases better, than the other starters in the NFL in their first 16 starts. You choose to ignore that, ignore the NFL's strong historical data on QBs in their first few years, and draw your own conclusions. You certainly have a right to do so.

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?

[Big Zip]

I would wager that no NFL quarterback has been hamstrung by the complete and utter ineptness of an offensive coordinator Charlie was stuck with. Maurice Carthon could go down as one of the worst offensive coordinators of all time. To get a complete dolt like him to help you transition to the NFL was less than helpful. All of this being said Charlie has his chance to prove to everyone this year he was worthy of a third round draft pick. I think the talent surrounding him and the offensive system are going to be quite an upgrade this year. I wish him all the luck in the world. I hate Notre Dame and would love nothing more than to see Brady Quinn wear a visor and carry a clip board all year like Phillip Rivers did in San Diego.

[ZippyBoy]

How about Jacksonville (Leftwich, Garrard, and even Couch), Kansas City (Huard, Croyle), Minnesota (Jackson, Bollinger), Tampa Bay (Garcia, Gradkowski, and about 16 other worthless QBs)?  Frye seems just as good as any of these players and they all have better offensive lines than Cleveland had last year!!!

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.