|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
As I said before, and this is the last time I'll respond. You're going by what you think will happen. I'm going by what Holmgren has told Frye.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
For this season, the Seahawks might be better off reactivating Jim Zorn as their number 3.... He knows the system, knows the players and doesn't have to get past a "Cleveland" experience....*L*
No one knows how Charlie is going to work out in the Seattle system. All we can go by is what he did here. He worked hard, spent a lot of time in film study, and was generally prepared. Seattle has a veteran team, with an experience HC. If Charlie is to have a chance for success, anywhere in the NFL, it is probably in Seattle.
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
I agree with all that....and agree with that is the reason Charlie is #3 and nothing more this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I think CF sees what is happenning and then knows what to do...he just doesn't have the arm strength at times.
CF holds onto the ball too long precisely because it takes him too long to figure out what is happening.. maybe he can improve on that... but I seriously doubt it's ever going to be a "strength" in his game...
My biggest gripe with CF was and still is that he doesn't throw it unless the receiver is WIDE OPEN (or in desperation time when he'd try to zip it into triple coverage)... he just never seemed to have the ability to anticipate and throw to a spot before the receiver made a move, which is how Bernie overcame having a less than big gun for an arm... If you have a gun you can wait an extra second and zip it in, if you have a weaker arm you need to anticipate more and have better timing.... if you have a weaker arm AND still wait a second longer, you end up with alot more INTs than TDs and a lot more sacks.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Not to beat a dead horse, but alot of that is contributed to the fact that the WRs were running the wrong routes much of the time and he had to make sure of what was "going on" before throwing the ball. Add to that the revolving OC position does little to allow someone to get adjusted to a system. So, it is possible that Frye CAN improve on those things with two simple adjustments...receivers running routes correctly and the stability of being in the same proven system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
As I said, it is possible for him to improve on it... but do you honestly think CF is ever going to be known for being a great cerebral QB?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Honestly? Probably not. I don't think he'll be known as a "great" QB of any kind, but I think the jury is still out on what he can be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Quote:
looking good for most of the games against Cincy and the Ravens.
I don't believe he looked good for most of those games ... well maybe the rats game ... against Cinci he looked more BAD and LUCKY than he did good ... he actually threw about a handful of good passes in that game ...
Quote:
We are lucky he only has 5 ints. That number can very easily be doubled
thats a HUGE UNDERSTATEMENT .... every QB has Int's dropped .. well he's used up about 3 years worth all ready ... *LOL* ..
Quote:
He has missed wide open recievers that would have made a difference in the Raiders game but that really doesn't concern me. His throwing into triple and quadrouple coverage is unexcuseable
U know bro thats akin to not being to worried about the huge bloody gash on your wrist because U have a severed aorta ... *LOL* ...
the missing of wide open recievers has happend in every game .. and it should concern U ... especially since its because of not just one but TWO REASONS ...
1. Innacuracy
2. he doesn't know there wide open because he's LOCKING on to the primary and throwing it no matter how many bad guys are there ...
either one of these reasons is ALARMING enough .. but having both of them goes way beyond having to worry about them ..
Quote:
We need to get Brady in as soon as he is ready in my mind.
I would be SHOCKED if he is not deemed "ready" the week after the bye ...
hes all ready better than DA and readin and recognizing D's ... DA doesnt do it post snap so he has to be by default .. *L* ... and he all ready knows the O better ... BQ could lock onto the primary all day long if he needs to .. *LOL* ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I believfe the market made that pick in that there was NO MARKET for DA .. NONE .. he wasnt worth a bag of balls to anyone ... so we went with who had ANY VALUE around the league and took what we could get ...
I'd be inclined to believe that line of thinking (though I agree that DA had no value), but the very fact that we were READY to yank Frye at the first sign of failure tells me they were ready to make a change.
I firmly believe that we went with Frye for no other reason than he was the incumbent, and that if we hadn't of invested a first day pick on him, that Savage would have allready given the reigns to Anderson.
Keep in mind that I'd been very loud in stating that Savage wanted to go with Anderson over Frye a long time ago.
No, if they had wanted to actually keep Frye, he wouldn't have been yanked and dumped after one-half of football. Keep in mind that Frye on the roster represents a fracture in the media and the fanbase when it comes to Quinn. Anderson represented no such fracture. That meant that Frye was the one that had to go.
Lucky for us that Frye had some trade value.
Quote:
we had NO QB's SIGNED and under contract so he had to take one .. *L* ... and i said from Day 1 that Frye was drafted more to be a back up than a starter ... we HAD TO HAVE A QB ... so we took a FLIER and it didnt pan out ... NO WAY IS THAT BLACK A MARK ... maybe a light blue small check mark but no way some big blunder ...
Hmmmm..........He was willing to trade a future #1 to get Quinn. He could have traded up to get Rodgers or Campbell. He could have gone in another direction. David Garrard? Matt Schaub? Plenty of other options instead of Chuck.
Just because we didn't have a QB under contract didn't mean we had to settle for Frye. Savage threw the dice. He lost. He chose poorly. A blemish? It was an experiment that cost this organization three years at the QB position, and the fix cost us our 2008 1st round pick.
That's FAR more than a blemish 
I'll give Savage his due when he gets guys like Bodden under contract and FINALLY fixes the left tackle position in the draft, but he has to take heat for moves like Frye, and this cobbled-together unit on defense.
Quote:
1. we used either a 2nd rnd pick or a 1st rnd pick to get my boy ... we didnt use two number #'s to get him ... thats a LIE ... and u know it ... u are the master of spin and even with that well earned monikor i have to believe u had a hard time typing that one ... my guess is u were *LOL* at the absurdity of it as u typed ..
And you are the master of not reading everything thoroughly *L*
I said.......and I quote............"USED two #1's to get Quinn"
I didn't say we TRADED two #1's. I said we USED two #1's.
Where's the lie? You need glasses  Tell me we didn't spend two #1 draft picks to get Quinn and I'll listen.
Quote:
2. Opie had NOTHING to do with Garcia leaving here .. NOTHING .... he wanted OUT and he was leaving no matter what ... pinning that on Opie is WRONG ....
Prove it!
The TRUTH is that you nor I know what would have happened if Opie would have coddled Garcia's nutz the way he has with Braylon. It's easy to speculate but we really don't know what would have happened. I didn't see one quote from Opie saying he wanted Garcia to stay. Did you?
Quote:
I agree ... but its a mute point so why even think about it .. GARCIA WANTED NUTTIN TO DO WITH US ... NUTTIN ...
Because I want to gloat a little on how we were right to bring in Garcia  God knows I've taken enough heat regarding Couch and Frye 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
He could have traded up to get Rodgers or Campbell. He could have gone in another direction.
Phil said they attempted to get back in the first round in 05 but couldn't..he was after one of the QB's and a LB...either the price was too high or no team wanted to trade down..
Tell me we didn't spend two #1 draft picks to get Quinn and I'll listen.
We used next years # 1 to do that..and we moved up to get Wright in the second ..so we had no third through 4 th round pick this year..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,795
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,795 |
Quote:
U know bro thats akin to not being to worried about the huge bloody gash on your wrist because U have a severed aorta ... *LOL* ...
I was trying to be nice.
Quote:
1. Innacuracy
2. he doesn't know there wide open because he's LOCKING on to the primary and throwing it no matter how many bad guys are there ...
either one of these reasons is ALARMING enough .. but having both of them goes way beyond having to worry about them ..
It doesn't concern me because I'm choosing not to worry about how bad our backup QB is. There are enough starting positions for me to worry about. 
As far as his play in the Cincy game...
You are right to say he got lucky. We had some great plays by our recievers and some pretty bad drops by Bengals defenders. He also missed JJ who was wide open in the end zone after he fumbled. I think he did make more good plays than bad however.
I haven't had any faith in him as our starter or backup. I said before that Savage blew it for not trading Frye and bringing in a vet who could have competed in this type of offense. I wanted Frye to be the starter and thought we were making a mistake with the whole QB competition. After seeing what kind of offense Chud is running, it has become obvious to me that Frye could never have run it. The problem is, Anderson has the physical tools to do well but still lacks the ability to run any offense.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Quote:
I firmly believe that we went with Frye for no other reason than he was the incumbent, and that if we hadn't of invested a first day pick on him, that Savage would have allready given the reigns to Anderson.
Keep in mind that I'd been very loud in stating that Savage wanted to go with Anderson over Frye a long time ago.
those two statements strung together make no sense ... Opie hurt us and himself by doing what he didnt want to do??? *LOL* ...
Quote:
Hmmmm..........He was willing to trade a future #1 to get Quinn. He could have traded up to get Rodgers or Campbell. He could have gone in another direction. David Garrard? Matt Schaub? Plenty of other options instead of Chuck.
u have one viable option in this scenario ... Schuabb ... and heres why ...
Opie was not overly concerned with a QB 3 years ago .. he knew we needed other pieces to the puzzle .... so throw out Rodgers and Campbell .... and THANK GOD ... cause he got a much better player in BQ .. you'll see ...
Garrard is ajoke .. he STINKS .... Schaubb would ahve been a much much better pick .. he seems to be the real deal .. i love what I have seen from him in Houston ...
but i am not going to LAMBAST our GM for not picking Schaubb and going for a guy that was rated as high or higher ...
Quote:
Just because we didn't have a QB under contract didn't mean we had to settle for Frye. Savage threw the dice. He lost. He chose poorly. A blemish? It was an experiment that cost this organization three years at the QB position, and the fix cost us our 2008 1st round pick.
Ummm .. well two of your examples would have cost us our #1's in whatever year we traded back into get them .. so Campbell and Rodgers are out of the pic in your scenario ....
Garrards a bum and Schuabb was definetly a miss ... again .. I;m not gonna lambast him for missing on that roll of the dice ...
NITPICKING is what your doing ...
Quote:
Tell me we didn't spend two #1 draft picks to get Quinn and I'll listen.
OK .. we didn't spend two #1 draft picks to get Quinn ... u listening now??? *L* ..
u can't have it both ways spinmaster .... are u a lawyer also???? *L* ... i'll explain it this way ....
if we didnt make the trade ... in 07 and 08 we would have had 2 picks in rnd 1 and 2 picks in rnd 2 .... follow me so far?? thats TRUE correct??
after the trade ... we ended up with 2 picks in rnd 1 and 1 pick in rnd 2 (we lost this years 2nd round pick) ....
so how the hell did we spend 2 first round picks on him??? we were gonna have 2 first rnd picks before the trade and thats exactly how many first round picks we ended up with after the trade ...
so if we spent 2 first rnd picks on BQ how did we still end up with 2 first rnd players??? sound like the MASTER OF SPIN at work to me MASTER TOAD ... *L* ..
Quote:
The TRUTH is that you nor I know what would have happened if Opie would have coddled Garcia's nutz the way he has with Braylon.
Ya .. i could have seen this convo now .... heres how Opie could have WOOED him ...
Jeff I understand u were lied to by the previous regime and have a real bitter taste in your mouth ... so i wanna start off on the right foot and show u were not gonna be like them .... so heres what we wanna do ...
we wanna make u the man ... your our QB for the foreseeable future .. and here's what were gonna do to make u a winner ... we agree with U that there isnt alot of talent here .. so were gonna TEAR IT DOWN and take MAJOR CAP HITS this year so we can bring pretty much nothing in .. our D is going to be REAL BAD so we'll give up alot of points and be behind all the time ...
but don't fret ... we will have enough $$$ to bring in a washed up Joe Andruzzi and a NEVER WAS in Cosey Coleman ... and then the coup de gra .. the underachieving waste of talent and space LJ Shelton to play LG .... we all ready have Tuck at RT
I'm sure that argument would have had him at the word Hi .... *LOL* ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
Quote:
I think our whole offensive scheme was set up to account for a lack of time, it was all underneath stuff, draws, and such... if you can count on your QB having time, there are pages in the playbook we can finally start to use
Exactly!
However, the pages with the deep 'out' passes wouldn't have been used if Frye was in the game.
PdawgQuote:
He has missed wide open recievers that would have made a difference in the Raiders game but that really doesn't concern me. His throwing into triple and quadrouple coverage is unexcuseable. How many balls has he thrown right into defenders hands that have been dropped? Sooner than later these LBs are going to start catching these throws and we are going to get crushed.
This is a sad truth. He truly scares the bageezus out of me sometimes.
Ya know, a lot of time and effort has gone into CF and his situation with Seattle and the why's of it. In reality, it's water under the bridge and now is Seatle's business...so what do we really care?
I watch DA drop back to pass...and....I hope. I hope he's not throwing into 4 defenders, I hope he's not throwing 2 steps behind the reciever, I hope he's not throwing to the FB ('cuz he hasn't showed enough touch).
I'm certain that I've not given him enough time to prove himself but as the season goes on, if he stays as he is (the type of QB that you watch with one eye closed and the other squinting) then I'd like to see if BQ does in fact posses the touch, strength, vision and smarts that we need from our starting QB.
YTown - when you get that error 'invalid thread' or whatever, do what the instruction says. Click your back button, then copy what you've typed and reload the board, find the thread and paste your post in a new message box.
![[Linked Image from members.cox.net]](http://members.cox.net/flyinc5/smallsigpics/frcburnout.gif) AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
I would say that DA is DOING better...but I do not see him GETTING better.
I think he is....and when you get right down to it....doing better is the important factor anyway.
Who the hell wants a player who is getting better but not doing better??
What exactly does that accomplish??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
Perhaps he means that DA had the flu and is getting over it. Bp - I can't get you to admit that our OL is the main reason that we 'seem' like a better team (including the QB position because of pass protection) can I?
AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
Quote:
Quote:
I would say that DA is DOING better...but I do not see him GETTING better.
I think he is....and when you get right down to it....doing better is the important factor anyway.
Who the hell wants a player who is getting better but not doing better??
What exactly does that accomplish??
Peen,
When I say he's DOING better, I mean doing better than Frye. NOT that I am seeing any improvement in DA. (I'll qualify that by saying he scared me less throughout the Ravens game than earlier this year. Call that what you like.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Coach, you wanna pin blame on the O-line and the receivers for running the wrong routes.
I can't disagree with those...BUT what about the fact (which has been stated by a certain prominent poster with the close ties to the org) that Frye would be consistently inconsistent in his drop back? As in he'd take a 5 step drop when the play calls for a 3 step drop?
I know that's been stated before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Bp - I can't get you to admit that our OL is the main reason that we 'seem' like a better team (including the QB position because of pass protection) can I?
Sure you can.....the OL is a big if not the biggest reason we are doing better....that has nothing to do with Couch or not drafting a LT or any of the stuff from the old days.
In those days it was simply a fact Couch wasn't good enough or the LTs being bantered about didn't match the pick.
I still maintain good guards and a decent center are more important than a great LT...and with the money guards are making these days, it seems some others agree.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
I've got no problem with building an OL (or team) from the middle of the field out...I agree that the shortest line to the QB is right up the middle but a LT is extreamly important also. As we know, it's the blind side for our right handed QB's. We had no excuse for not drafting one this year...he was there. I seriously would've lost all respect for Savage if we didn't take JT.
As you've said, he was not the total answer. Steinbach's earlier addition was huge.
It's still early to make judgements...but I look at the last 3 games and I see a pocket of protection...at a fairly consistant rate. We have not had that since our return and I'm quite sure that our improved offensive stats and scoring is not just a coincidence to our improved pass protection. Since the first game, even blitzes have not caused the same havoc. We can actually stretch the defense now which opens up all kinds of things including the running game. We could even run a screen if DA could just find a little more touch to his passes.
I look forward to the readiness of BQ to see what level that he can bring the offense to.
Now, beginning in February, we can start working on the DL and other positions...but we're not quite done with the OL because we want a GREAT one.
AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
OK, this is the most significant difference from last season to this ....... (I read about this on another site and had to check for myself)
Derek Anderson has started 3 games,
Here are the results of his drives:
Cincinnati:
Punt
FG
FG
TD
TD
TD
INT
TD
TD
Downs
TD
FG
Punt
Kneel Down (end of game)
Oakland
Punt
Punt
INT
Punt
INT
TD
FG
Punt
TD
Punt
TD
Blocked FG Attempt
Baltimore:
TD
TD
INT
FG
TD
Kneel Down (end of half)
FG
Punt
Punt
Punt (3 Lewis runs)
The totals are:
36 Drives
12 TDs
6 FGs
9 Punts
4 INTs
2 Kneel Downs
1 Blocked FG attempt.
34 actual drives, (not counting the kneel downs) and 18 resulted in points. It would have been 19 if we didn't have a FG blocked.
That's staggering.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74 |
I often do not post on this board, or any for that matter, but i am on here more than everyday reading it, and this thread is unbelievable! I don't understand
1. why this conversation is happening and
2. How people still have so much belief that Frye is god, and better than anderson, who by the way is 2-1 this year, been sacked twice, gets the ball to the playmakers, and doesn't piddle-paddle in the pocket for 5 seconds then scramble to "avoid a sack" (which if he would get rid of the ball he wouldn't be avoiding), often w/ the play ending up in a horrible int. thrown over his body, a sack, a fumble, or a holding call (has anyone noticed how many less holding calls there have been this year- improved line or not w/ DA in the game?)
Another reason is that this year while watching the browns w/ DA, every time they get the ball, i believe they have a legitimate chance to score, which i have not thought in a long time, esp. w/ frye
Yes DA makes boneheaded throws too, but its an even trade for Frye's "athleticism" that often resulted in sacks, penalties, or ints anyways. in a game where winning is the only thing that matters, no matter how bad he played against Oak., where at least DA kept us in the game and gave us a chance to win late, DA is doing a hell of a lot better job so far than Frye ever did.
Go Browns!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849 |
I was a Frye supporter... but it is SO obvious that Anderson is so much better commanding this offense then Frye...
He EASILY makes defenses respect him.. Frye NEVER commanded anything... He always got BLITTZ BLITZ BLITZ!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
1) Frye is gone, turn the page and move on.
2) Anderson is the interim starter, 6 games or 16 it does not matter.
3) Hey the Browns can score points.... Yeah. winning 27-17 is better than losing 17-13.
4) Next year is the D.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,425
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,425 |
frye always got the blitz because he didnt have the ability to beat a d while getitng rushed. The reason the other teams dont blitz derick quite as much is because he`ll hurt the defence downfield. Sorry to say to the frye fans. He had his running as his thing. I`d rather have the passer.
I`m good with Baker... Playoffs is good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
those two statements strung together make no sense ... Opie hurt us and himself by doing what he didnt want to do??? *LOL* ...
As if you've never heard of a GM or owner sticking with the guy who was a high investment just to save face 
Quote:
u have one viable option in this scenario ... Schuabb ... and heres why ...
For both our sakes, I'll skip some of the quotes so that we don't go blind before our time (though you still need glasses while I need my sanity back, but more on that later ).
I like Campbell. I like his upside. I liked Rodgers over Smith, and though everyone has an opinion, nobody knows anything about Rodgers yet. Saying either isn't worthwhile is premature.
Quote:
Opie was not overly concerned with a QB 3 years ago .. he knew we needed other pieces to the puzzle ....
Now while I can accept that line of thinking (we talked about that very topic three years ago), you can't tell me that we don't STILL need other pieces. We need a NT, two DE's, and two LB's. Hell, we might still need a safety and a receiver.
This team is more than a QB away from being good.
So, to say that he wasn't concerned with the QB position then because we had other more important pieces is contradictory, as we STILL have more important positions of need, but he decided to make a BIG investment to get Quinn.
Quote:
Ummm .. well two of your examples would have cost us our #1's in whatever year we traded back into get them .. so Campbell and Rodgers are out of the pic in your scenario ....
Speculation on Rodgers, factual on Campbell (even though I like Campbell, I can't believe what the 'Skins gave up for him.).
The reality here is that there were other options.
And sorry, but Garrard is a joke? He has a 103 rating this year diam  I'd GLADLY take that right now if we could have our #1 pick back next year.
Quote:
so if we spent 2 first rnd picks on BQ how did we still end up with 2 first rnd players??? sound like the MASTER OF SPIN at work to me MASTER TOAD ... *L* ..
I'll tell you what's so funny about this. I remember defending the trade by saying that, in essence, we gave up this year's 2nd rounder to get our QB one year early.
So what's so funny about that? Well, because I have no CLUE why I was saying it cost us two 1st round picks. I REALLY wish I knew exactly why I was thinking that, but I can't imagine what that specific reason would be. I suppose I could admit that I'd just woken up and was thinking about the meeting I was about to have with my family, but that still isn't an excuse *L*
Forgive me?
Quote:
I'm sure that argument would have had him at the word Hi .... *LOL* ...
I got a good laugh out of that one. 
I do think that if given the chance to remain as a starter or spend a year in exile in Detroit, that we'd have suddenly looked much more appealing
So where are we in this discussion? It comes back to Savage banking on Frye. You call it a blemish, I call it something much worse. I can even say I understood why we'd take a gamble on him, but with what's at stake in the NFL, Savage needed to be right. He wasn't, and needs to be held accountable for that mistake, and a big mistake it was.
There isn't much that I've held to Savage's mirror, but that move is one of'em.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Wait, now I remember why I was thinking that.
It's because when we made the trade, I remember thinking that the 36th pick was like a first rounder in value compared to that draft.
Doesn't change the fact that I was wrong, but it does explain my temporary insanity 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
Quote:
w/ DA, every time they get the ball, i believe they have a legitimate chance to score, which i have not thought in a long time
And I maintain that the root reason for this is not the QB, it is the protection and time the QB now gets, which they have not gotten since our return.
YTown - same thing goes for the list of drives. Put back last year's OL and play those games over again and that list will look like the first 5 drives of the Raider game all the way through becuase that's the way it was. That's what we've seen. That's what's been driving us crazy.
AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
We had no excuse for not drafting one this year...he was there.
I agree. I don't believe you heard any complaints from me. Pre-draft, my only take was I would have passed on Thomas had either Russell or Calvin Johnson been available....but they weren't and we were lucky enough to be in position for Thomas....it worked out for everybody.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
And I maintain that the root reason for this is not the QB, it is the protection and time the QB now gets, which they have not gotten since our return.
I think we are now talking chicken or the egg first type stuff now.
Either way, it is a symbiotic relationship where both benefit.
No question a qb depends on the line, but I think it foolish to think the qb is simply a result of the line...Anderson is doing something right.
Those numbers YTBF posted are pretty clear in my book...Anderson can move the team. And with time you would hope some of the turnovers are reduced.
Lots of good qbs make turnovers....Favre is one example over his career..
I think some on here are a little shy of turnovers because they have been conditioned by a team that couldn't score where turnovers really were a killer. After all, you can't give up many scoring chances when you struggle to put up 10 points.
It doesn't hurt as much if you can post up 25.
That isn't to say turnovers are good, or ok. I am simply saying it is possible they don't hurt as much.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
Quote:
Quote:
w/ DA, every time they get the ball, i believe they have a legitimate chance to score, which i have not thought in a long time
And I maintain that the root reason for this is not the QB, it is the protection and time the QB now gets, which they have not gotten since our return.
YTown - same thing goes for the list of drives. Put back last year's OL and play those games over again and that list will look like the first 5 drives of the Raider game all the way through becuase that's the way it was. That's what we've seen. That's what's been driving us crazy.
This statement of fact - which is right on the $$$ BTW - is exactly why the CF v. DA "comparison" will always be flawed.
It's apples and oranges. One cannot compare CF last year to DA this year because of the OL and J Lewis...unless you want to use the 1.3456 quarters that CF played against Pissburgh. (Which was a game full of changes anyway...making any comparison flawed again.)
So...stats aside...we are only left with opinion and "gut feel" to decide which QB one thinks is better.
Some people take that as something to debate and discuss...others take it as a point to argue. No big deal...that's why we are here.
Lastly, I believe that if CF were running this offense right now we would be much worse off than with DA, CF just couldn't do it like it needs to be done...then again, if BQ were the QB, I think we'd be 3-1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
I am not "pinning" the blame on anyone. I'm stating WHY things happened. Charlie had problems of his own....what young QB doesn't? However, I would also point to the fact that it was also posted and reported by the media that things were called wrong from the OC (wrong blocking schemes for a play), so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it wasn't all on Frye either.
As I said before, Charlie is now in Seattle with a chance to further his career. He has progressed enough and shown Holmgren enough that Holmgren now has the confidence to begin using Wallace at other positions....something he said he wouldn't do until he was confident that Frye could be the backup.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
Pre-draft, I recall that you weren't in favor of reaching up for JT whereas I wanted to do whatever it took to get him. And no, you didn't complain the way the picks worked out. Quote:
Those numbers YTBF posted are pretty clear in my book...Anderson can move the team
...sigh...but I'm going to stand my ground and maintain that THE REASON that DA is moving the team is because he has the time in the pocket to find receivers, which makes D's play more honest, which opens the run game a bit. We're not great at run blocking yet so we need to set up the run against the better D's.
I'm at work looking over my shoulder....somebody look up DA's stats from the games he played last year and see how they compare to this year. (and don't give me that 'stats are for losers' stuff). 
AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Here's a quote from NFL.COM about fantasy value of Anderson. They now rate him as a first round fantasy pick. I know, I know, some idiot is going to scream "STATS ARE FOR LOSERS," but in this case, we've seen the evidence on the field.... I think the telling numbers are that he's on a pace for a 3.800 yard, 40 TD season....  9. Derek Anderson, QB, Cleveland: The presence of Anderson in the first round is an absolute shock, but he's in the top five in overall fantasy points after four weeks. He's on pace for 3,800-plus passing yards and 40 total touchdowns -- and he's still available in close to 40 percent of NFL.com leagues.
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
9. Derek Anderson, QB, Cleveland: The presence of Anderson in the first round is an absolute shock, but he's in the top five in overall fantasy points after four weeks. He's on pace for 3,800-plus passing yards and 40 total touchdowns -- and he's still available in close to 40 percent of NFL.com leagues.
Until week 8 when Brady Quinn starts playing.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Well, that settles it. If he's a great find on fantasy football, he HAS to be a great player. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Pre-draft, I recall that you weren't in favor of reaching up for JT whereas I wanted to do whatever it took to get him.
I agree there....I didn't want to trade up if that is what you mean by reaching.
I am happy how it worked out....but trading a boatload to move up a slot wouldn't have been good.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it wasn't all on Frye either.
Funny. I've never heard you be so bland and politically correct in making a point. *L*
No, it wasn't all Frye. The guy has limited ability for this league, but he got little help from the OC, the line, and his moody #1 receiver.
The only fair way to compare DA and Frye, beyond their obvious skill sets (why am I growing extremely tired of that term?) is to evaluate what they did when circumstances were correct during any given play.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
You're right and unfortunately none of us know when that occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
j/c
So, below is the stats for DA. This year on top, last year below.
Player Att Comp Yds Comp % Yds/Att TD TD % INT INT % Long Sck Sack/Lost Rating
Derek Anderson 116 61 964 52.6 8.3 9 7.8 5 4.3 78 2 36 88.4
Derek Anderson 117 66 793 56.4 6.8 5 4.3 8 6.8 54 8 66 63.1
The main differences here are the lower sack numbers and the higher yards per attempt (and more TD's). His completion pct is the same 'nothing to brag about' 50% range (even if you throw out the squealer game his comp pct this year only goes to 54.5)
He wasn't great last year, he's not great this year but our offense is better. IMO it is our OL that gives more time to throw further down the field which has the domino affect of the D's playing more honest and oppening up the running game, etc.
AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Picks are about half the former and rating is higher.
His lower pick totals could explain his comp % being down too.
Every ball you force in isn't going to be picked..some are going to be caught....while I agree the line is a big improvement, I don't think it can be used to say Anderson hasn't improved as well.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum the main difference between this
year and last
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
