Frye Conspiracy Theory

[zen]

Truth is, if any of us had the time, we could provide quite a long list of great NFL quarterbacks who looked awful when they were first in the league.

League? Why not just start with any quarterback who has had to try to play for Cleveland over the last several decades

[ZippyBoy]

For one, does the name Brett Favre ring a bell?  Cut by the Atlanta Falcons after only a couple of years?

Everyone's probably heard this story a million times (esp. if you've ever listened to John Madden announce a GB game), but had to correct anyway...Brett Favre was traded to GB after one year in ATL for a #1 pick - he was not cut. His rookie campaign, he went 0-5 with 2 interceptions. He even failed the physical when the trade happened, but GB approved the trade anyway.For the record, I think Charlie is a good pick-up for the Seahawks. Seems like they were pushing for Wallace to become more involved as a WR. With Bobby Engram and Nate Burelson as his competition and a possible shift of focus by Wallace, he could rise up the WR depth chart in a hurry (esp with their #2 receiver (Hackett) getting hurt Week 1)! This is a no-lose situation for Seattle...they give up basically nothing for a young guy with potential and experience. Seems like a no-brainer to me!!!

[blueandgold]

A better example is Steve Young. He sucked when he was at Tampa Bay . They had a team similar to what the Browns have had the past several years.We all know how that turned out after he moved on and was able to learn in a great system at San Francisco and play behind HOF QB Joe Montana. Hasselback is no Montana, but he's pretty darn good.

[skip-zip]

I know I am using the perfect example by using Favre as an example of a guy who went from playing poorly early, to being a star in the league. It's just the example that comes to the top of my mind when thinking of QB development.And before any of the detractors decide to respond by saying "so you think Frye will be as good as Favre???" Just drop it. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just using him as one of many, many examples of QBs that developed quite well after a bad start in their career. Want another illustration of how difficult it is to forecast QB development? How about the fact that more than HALF of QBs drafted in the first round have short careers in the NFL.Once again, it's just way too difficult to project the future success of NFL quarterbacks. But Charlie's rating shows he's on track with, and ahead of, where many current starters were at this point in their career. Honestly, after a few days to think about it, I'm happy for Charlie that he is in a much better situation, but sad that if he develops well, he'll be playing somewhere else besides for my Cleveland Browns. I also like zen's point that you can actually think of Cleveland ALONE and come up with QBs that did well after they left here.

[sgm405]

sgm...it's just the same repetitive and tiring argument, over and over again.Yes, we all know Charlies stats: One of the best QB ratings among current NFL starters in their first 16 games as an NFL starter. But, you've chosen to argue that for months now.But what you say in your most current post really takes the cake.Charlie has been Cleveland's starter by default??? Because we had nobody else that was better???Hmmm...can't we make that argument about every starting quarterback in the NFL?You're really reaching for anything you can at this point, aren't you? I just don't understand your obsession with finding anything you can think of to discredit this guy.

You're main argument is that Charlie sucked as bad as other QB's in his first 16 starts in the league. That tells the entire story right there.And it wouldn't be a bad argument if every other QB didn't get leaps and bounds better in their 2nd year (Charlie didn't of course).