DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Frye, Head to Head with opposing QB's

[color:"orange"]Doesnt that go without saying, seeing how Carthon was dismissed?
I think we've solved that problem to a certain extent...at least I'm praying we have. <img src="/images/graemlins/azzangel.gif" alt="" /> [/color]

[color:"orange"]No need to get upset, it's just a message board...I dont see why you'd be upset because people are calling out Toad? Unless...... <img src="/images/graemlins/naughtydevil.gif" alt="" />

Later.[/color]

I wonder what " Sipes " Qb " would have been <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You shoulda been here for the Couch/Holcomb deadbate <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I have to say apples and oranges. The old geezers played in an era where passing was not the benchmark of the NFL. The bump rule and now the 5 yard touch were modifications to the NFL to open up the passing game and consequentially QB ratings should go up. Also, NFL offenses of yesteryear were not as far developed (the WCO concepts were not developed as of yet).

That probably adds 10 to 20 points to a QB system. If you take a look at the QB rating system a rating of 100 was deemed pefect based upon the individual seasons of QB's pre 1973. Now a rating of 90 or 100 is commonplace.

Itf these rules and concepts were in play, receivers such as Allworth and Warfield would have set records that no one would have touched.

Hehehe.... <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

You want current examples.....

Huard 97.6
Carr 89.6
Brady 83.7

Now which of those three would you rather have as the Browns QB???

hmmmm Eli Manning 81.0
Jp Losman 80.5

Well holy crap old JP is just as good of a QB as Eli Manning <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> (Yes thats very heavy sarcasm) <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I just realized that Kelly Holcomb was a better QB than Donovan McNabb last year <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> and Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Eli Manning in 2005 <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Hey thats what the QB rating say <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

[color:"white"]

Comparing players from different era's GM? That's not apples to apples when one starts attempting to quantify value in statistics.

Compare players in their own era, or to be more exact, in their own decade. That's when using the rating becomes legitimate. The two things the passer rating doesn't take into consideration are rushing yards and fumbles.

Using the rating quantifies a QB's efficiency, and gives us all something to judge his progress, or regression, depending on each case.

Sorry GM, but there isn't a better tool to be found when trying to examine a QB. Win's and losses aren't even close.

Now, as for the title of the thread, and as others have broached allready, that bit of info doesn't tell 25% of the story. I mean honestly, is it QB versus QB? *L*

If someone wants to show Frye's progress, they need to compare last year's numbers to this years numbers, while factoring in the play of the players around him. Putting up a vague stat about head-to-head numbers fails because each QB is, in fact, NOT going up against the others head-to-head.

There's so much more to the game than that.

[/color]

pssst I already did bro <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[color:"white"]Guess I was late to that party *L*

However, let me quote........myself <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> [color:"white"]

I didn't say that the rating is the end-all. It's a tool, nothing more. However, when it comes to comparing a player to his play from a different year, it's the most reliable tool that exists.

So, while some believe the line isn't worse than last years, I think most believe it is. With that in mind, I think Frye is showing some measure of progress, even if it's not substantial.

Now, if you'll forgive the poke here <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> [color:"white"]
Huard has 8 career starts to Brady's 87.

Now that we've added in more information to the rating, it paints a better picture.

So while rating itself doesn't tell it all, it's one of but many tools that helps tell the truth about what's going on.

Besides, so far this year, Huard HAS outplayed Brady. That doesn't mean he's the QB that people would take, it simply means he's playing better. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> [/color]

It also does not take into consideration is the team has a good or bad o-line (makes all the difference in the world) if the team has good WR's or second rate WR's. How many passes were great passes by the QB, but dropped by the reciever (or tipped for INT's) It does not take inot account if a INT was a bone headed throw by the QB, or a great play by the DB. If a 40 yard TD pass was threaded thru a needle on a great throw, or if a three yard swing pass was broken for a 80 yard TD due to a great play by the reciever. It counts a hail mary thrown at the end of the second quarter or game the same as a terrable throw that was picked and run back for a TD.


Yes there is, and everybody has two of those tools..... they are called "EYES" <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />



Your right about there being so much more to the game than that. Thats yet another reason QB ratings are not a true indication of how good or bad a QB is. Just take Yards per carry by a running back. Take a RB with a piece of crap o-line and offense and put him on a team with a great o-line and offense and his yards per carry would go way up, and a great running back's numbers would go down if the position were switched.

Poke away bro, just don't put my eye out <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If you want to sit down and calculate the QB rating "against" every defense we've played as a season to date stat, have at it. I don't think that you'll be all that happy if you do though, as QB rating includes TD and INT ratio, yards/attempt, completion percentage, etc .... only one of which is favorable as far as Frye's stats are concerned.

Just because I was curious, I did New Orleans for you. The "average" QB playing the New Orleans defense puts up a QB rating of 89.78. Frye's rating was 53.32.

LOL Yet another thing QB ratings don't take into consideration. Did the QB play against

Washington
Green Bay
Atlanta
Arizona
Bengals

OR

Bears
Colts
Oakland
Miami
Jacksonville

That makes a huge difference. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Oh and one more thing Toad <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I have heard many people say the Browns could go 5-11 this year YET be a better team than we were last year because we play a tougher schedule. Well then couldn't Charlie also have a better year with a worse QB rating since he is facing better D's ? <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Just a couple more thoughts on ratings.

A QB like Rivers will never have the rating that Peyton has simply because of the presence of LT. The same can be stated for QB's that have strong running games.

Most QB pre 1980 had similar TD:INTs. Fouts lifetime was 254:242 with great seasons being a 2:1 ratio. Now we see 3:1, 4:1 and even 5:1 ratios.

The system is useful, but you you have to put it in the context of the era and context of the team.

Of the items that go into making a QB rating, the one that I look at is the YD/attempt. This sorta is a better indication than completion percentage, because a downfield thower should have a lower percentage than a short tosser.

Great QB's have a value above 8
Acceptable QB's have a value between 7-8
Mediocre QB's have a value between 6-7
If you are below 6, well, the bench is probably not too far away.

So with a drumroll, here are this seasons stats.

1 2 Tony Romo DAL 1124 128 8.78 84 8 4 53 101.2
2 4 Donovan McNabb PHI 2569 303 8.48 174 18 5 87 98.2
3 1 Peyton Manning IND 2527 320 7.90 210 18 3 51 104.5
4 7 Drew Brees NO 2604 331 7.87 217 15 7 86 95.8
5 22 Ben Roethlisberger PIT 2043 262 7.80 167 10 14 63 78.1
6 8 Carson Palmer CIN 2318 300 7.73 189 15 6 74 95.1
7 5 Marc Bulger STL 2515 330 7.62 212 13 2 67 98
8 3 Philip Rivers SD 2085 274 7.61 182 13 3 57 100.4
9 6 Damon Huard KC 1824 241 7.57 146 11 1 78 97.6
10 14 Jon Kitna DET 2376 326 7.29 206 11 11 60 82.3
11 12 Rex Grossman CHI 2095 290 7.22 166 17 11 62 83.6
12 13 Matt Hasselbeck SEA 1249 176 7.10 103 10 7 72 82.8
13 23 Daunte Culpepper MIA 929 134 6.93 81 2 3 52 77
14 30 Drew Bledsoe DAL 1164 169 6.89 90 7 8 51 69.2
15 10 Mark Brunell WAS 1789 260 6.88 162 8 4 74 86.5
16 16 Chad Pennington NYJ 1726 251 6.88 158 10 9 71 81.5
17 11 Tom Brady NE 2052 303 6.77 179 15 9 45 83.7
18 18 Eli Manning NYG 1972 293 6.73 174 15 11 50 81
19 19 J.P. Losman BUF 1498 224 6.69 138 7 6 56 80.5
20 20 Alex Smith SF 1661 249 6.67 150 9 7 75 80.4
21 9 David Carr HOU 1673 255 6.56 173 9 5 53 89.6
22 17 Brett Favre GB 2295 352 6.52 203 13 7 82 81.3
23 25 Brad Johnson MIN 1877 288 6.52 181 5 9 46 74.4
24 15 Jake Delhomme CAR 1970 304 6.48 182 10 6 72 81.7
25 28 Jake Plummer DEN 1595 248 6.43 137 10 10 83 71.6
26 26 Michael Vick ATL 1559 246 6.34 129 12 9 55 73.2
27 21 Byron Leftwich JAC 1159 183 6.33 108 7 5 51 79
28 24 Steve McNair BAL 1692 270 6.27 162 10 9 65 76.7
29 27 Charlie Frye CLE 1735 289 6.00 181 9 12 75 72.4
30 29 Bruce Gradkowski TB 1030 218 4.72 115 7 3 52 70.7

Charlie is right now at 6.

The second item that I think is important is the INT percentage.

Here again

1 great
1-2 very good
2-3 acceptable
3-4 not so good
above 4.... <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

1 Damon Huard KC 1824 241 146 11 1 0.41% 78 97.6
2 Marc Bulger STL 2515 330 212 13 2 0.61% 67 98
3 Peyton Manning IND 2527 320 210 18 3 0.94% 51 104.5
4 Philip Rivers SD 2085 274 182 13 3 1.09% 57 100.4
5 Bruce Gradkowski TB 1030 218 115 7 3 1.38% 52 70.7
6 Mark Brunell WAS 1789 260 162 8 4 1.54% 74 86.5
7 Donovan McNabb PHI 2569 303 174 18 5 1.65% 87 98.2
8 David Carr HOU 1673 255 173 9 5 1.96% 53 89.6
9 Jake Delhomme CAR 1970 304 182 10 6 1.97% 72 81.7
10 Brett Favre GB 2295 352 203 13 7 1.99% 82 81.3
11 Carson Palmer CIN 2318 300 189 15 6 2.00% 74 95.1
12 Drew Brees NO 2604 331 217 15 7 2.11% 86 95.8
13 Daunte Culpepper MIA 929 134 81 2 3 2.24% 52 77
14 J.P. Losman BUF 1498 224 138 7 6 2.68% 56 80.5
15 Byron Leftwich JAC 1159 183 108 7 5 2.73% 51 79
16 Alex Smith SF 1661 249 150 9 7 2.81% 75 80.4
17 Tom Brady NE 2052 303 179 15 9 2.97% 45 83.7
18 Tony Romo DAL 1124 128 84 8 4 3.13% 53 101.2
19 Brad Johnson MIN 1877 288 181 5 9 3.13% 46 74.4
20 Steve McNair BAL 1692 270 162 10 9 3.33% 65 76.7
21 Jon Kitna DET 2376 326 206 11 11 3.37% 60 82.3
22 Chad Pennington NYJ 1726 251 158 10 9 3.59% 71 81.5
23 Michael Vick ATL 1559 246 129 12 9 3.66% 55 73.2
24 Eli Manning NYG 1972 293 174 15 11 3.75% 50 81
25 Rex Grossman CHI 2095 290 166 17 11 3.79% 62 83.6
26 Matt Hasselbeck SEA 1249 176 103 10 7 3.98% 72 82.8
27 Jake Plummer DEN 1595 248 137 10 10 4.03% 83 71.6
28 Charlie Frye CLE 1735 289 181 9 12 4.15% 75 72.4
29 Drew Bledsoe DAL 1164 169 90 7 8 4.73% 51 69.2
30 Ben Roethlisberger PIT 2043 262 167 10 14 5.34% 63 78.1

I'm not sure if I follow you're logic. If I'm reading your post right you are equating yards per attempt as being the benchmark. That is a little deceiving to me because some systems are set up on the short pass. Where am I going wrong?

Your not going wrong anywhere bro. Your dead on.

28 24 Steve McNair BAL 1692 270 6.27 162 10 9 65 76.7
29 27 Charlie Frye CLE 1735 289 6.00 181 9 12 75 72.4

[color:"yellow"]McNair is one spot ahead of Frye, yet his team is 7-2.

Oh, and while we are at it we might as well debunk OverToad's constant complaints about Frye and fumbling.

Most Fumbles by a QB this year
11 - Andrew Walter
10 - Carson Palmer
10 - David Carr - OverToad's favorite QB
9 - Damon Huard
9 - Kurt Warner
9 - JP Losman
8 - Bruce Gradkowski
8 - Brad Johnson
8 - Eli Manning
8 - Michael Vick
7 - Tom Brady
7 - Alex Smith
6 - Drew Brees
6 - Steve McNair
6 - Jon Kitna
5 - Mark Brunell
5 - Jake Delhomme
5 - Seneca Wallace
5 - Rex Grossman
5 - Vince Young
5 - Charlie Frye


INT's count in a QB's so called 'efficiency' but fumbles do not. Frye is not a big fumbler like OverToad would like you to believe.[/color]

A WCO offense will have a high completion percentage, but a lower yards per completion.

A vertical offense will have a lower completion percentage but a higher yards per completion

So YPA is a measure of total pass efficiency, regardless of offensive style.

j/c

While stats are fun to look at, remember all, they are stats - you know - statistics. Statistics can be read all day, and show many, many things.

What counts is Wins and losses. I'm not ready to throw Charlie under the bus, so to speak, but wins and losses are what count. Stats are so "one sided", or "one level".

Defenses played, did you have a running game or not, did YOUR defense do good, or were you behind from the first possession playing catch up the whole day. Field position, all these things come into play in ranking any player. Looking at one set of numbers really means nothing.

I know, averages, averages averages - but not even that takes all things into account.

Bottom line is winning. That's what truly makes a player, when you're talking q.b. (and I'm not knocking Fry with that - winning also takes experience, and it takes a running game, and it takes an o line, and it takes a defense, etc, etc)

But at the end of the day, winning counts, q.b. rating does not, yds. thrown for does not, completion percentage, etc -

But, that's just my opinion.

[color:"white"]

In fact, I said that exact same thing about the record. Methinks your poking fun at me <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

About the rating, sure, but you're trying to make this cut and dry, black and white. No dice <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The rating is a tool, not the end-all be-all of indicators.

Completition percentage is important.
Yards per attempt are important.
TD's are important.
INT's are important.
Yards are important.
Etc, etc. The rating system combines those into a format which is easy on the eyes and mind to comprehend.

You're fighting a losing battle here bro, hehe. The rating system is too well-engrained into the very fabric of the game to be dismissed. If you'd choose to fight the battle that the rating is the final word, then you'd win. If you're trying to dismiss it as unreliable information, game over man, game over <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> [/color]

They are a "equally" rated to an extent.

To me the priority of the numbers.

YPA,
INT%,
Comp PCT
TD PCT

If I had my way, I would rate them a bit differently and also include running yards, total (running and passing) TD's, sacks pct, and pct fumbles lost...

...Not the sole responsibility of the quarterback.

[color:"white"]Well, the way I view it, it's a passer rating, not a QB rating, technically speaking.

I honestly thought several years ago that they would have come up with a system to work in what Vick brings to the table, but so far, nobody has gone that far.

It shouldn't be very hard to come up with something that includes rushing yards, rushing TD's, and fumbles. The tough part is assigning proper value to rushing yards and fumbles.[/color]

Technically it is called the "Passer Rating". per NFL.

In my spare time I will devise a true "QB rating" and become world famous.

<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'm not poking fun here (wow thats a first) <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> and I am trying to do the opposite of making things cut and dry. Thats what a QB rating does. I am not saying you use the QB rating only, but many, many, posters have and still do throw up the QB rating and try to make it cut and dry. I am just trying to show those that do that, SHOULDN'T.


So was the drop kick, but except for Flutie you never see that any more <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />


Just because something is easy, doesn't make it right.


I think I already dismissed as unreliable information. Like I said before QB ratings and used toilet paper have two things in common. They are both full of chit, and not worth a thing <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I like Tom Brady's rating, whatever it is... that's the one I'd want.
Joe Montana had a good rating, too, as did Aikman.

I've always disagreed with the "stats are for losers" but it's beginning to sink in why.

The only rating that counts is how many Ws he can produce.

I'll take 16-0 with a 38 QB over a 0-16 with a 158 any day.

I find it so funny reading the responses to this thread LOL

If a person is predisposed to support Frye, they are happy that the Stats seem to indicate he's doing his job.. If a person is predisposed to hating on Frye, then the stats are for losers.... Really cracks me up sometimes ya know!

Here's the truth as I see it.. (if I had to pick a position, I'd say I lean more to supporting charlie) Frye is neither the savior nor is he the goat for this season.

So many things have gone wrong for the Browns this season starting with the loss of Bentley on O, Cutch, then Baxter and now Bodden on D. Throw in the Dropped passes and fumbles and Poor Oline play and BOOM, you have a recipe for disaster.

Yet, some on here want to say it's the Oline and nothing else. Others will insist it's Frye and the list of specific players who's at fault continues to grow.

Truth is, They've all had a hand in the record so far. There isn't many guys on this team or on the coaching staff that are mistake free at this point.. Plenty of blame to go around if you know what I mean.

I personally don't think Charlie is the culprit totally... (yes to some degree he is) I also don't think the Oline is totally responsible. There seem to be indications as of late that the Oline is playing a bit better. But still, we have no consistent running attack. So is that Droughns, the scheme or the Line?

Answer: Probably a little of all three.

This I will say, since Davidson has taken over for Mo, it seems that this Offense is playing with more fire and more consistency.. Just a little more of both. Oddly enough, the record is 2-1 in that time. Amazing how that happens isn't it <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this,,, It's just too early in Fryes career to say he's the one, or to say he isn't..

Great post. I've tried to make a similar point on a few other posts. People are not looking at it objectively. It's more about drawing a line in the sand and daring anyone to cross it. Then you get entire threads that are simply a ruse to further their cause about a certain player. LOL...

There's plenty of blame to go around. I still say it all starts up top, but I realize none of you want to buy that one. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Though I am not going to get drawn into a debate because it's water under the bridge, there is one thing you said that I disagree with. The comment about Mo/Davidson might be a reach. The defenses we played before and after are in different worlds. I realize that SD did have a good D earlier in the year, but when we played them they had a ton of guys out w/injury or suspension. They got Phillips back last week and still gave up 41 pts. I'm not saying that Davidson isn't a better coordinator, but I think it's too early to tell. Opposing defenses do have some influence on how an offense plays. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If your saying it's RAC or Savage,,, Hey, they have blame in this also.. When a team is undefeated, there is plenty of praise to go around,,, Everyone must have done thier jobs pretty well.. Conversly, when a team has a lousy record, it's easy to conclude that hardly anyone has done a good job <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And yeah, it's starts at the top.



I understand that,,, makes sense to me also. I was just looking at the record and nothing more.. Perhaps a bit shortsighted on my part.

I don't think so... I tend to support Frye, but the number are representive of how he and the team are doing. Too many ints and not enough YPA. Why, well he is on his scrambling or on his rump most of the time.

[color:"white"]Yeah, I think D has taken that a step too far. A few people will love Frye no matter what because they are Homers and Frye was born here. Some few will not like Frye no matter what regardless of the circumstances.

However, the vast majority are taking a wait-and-see approach, and I count myself in that group. I'm happy that he's showing at least some marginal developement, though I tend to believe he's 50/50 at best. Most fans have a lean when it comes to Frye, but they also are wise enough to realize it's too early to tell. [/color]

He's BAAAACCCK! Actually I have never left but just took a time out to watch and see what happens. And what I'm seeing is the same as what I saw at the begining of the season.

First of all I don't hate Frye, I just hate the fact that he is the starting QB for my Browns. I hate the fact that he is a back up QB at best in this league and yet the homers are willing to throw years away while tutoring a career back up. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I also hate watching second rate football from the QB position when oportunities have come and gone to pick up a winner, either through the draft or through FA. And that is the bottom line, you can have all the stats in the world but if you have not proven yourself a winner I don't want you! <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

And last but not least I hate losing and so many fans around here need to stop saying wait till next year or give this guy a couple more years. That my friends is a losers mentality and a cop out which have developed during this culture of losing that we have sufferd through.

Oh yea thanks Riddler for waking the dead! <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

No problemo <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

There goes the neighborhood...

The point that I would like to make about Frye is that we are looking at an unfinished product.

Most 3 round QB's never see the light of day until year 3. We have been watching Charlie for about a year now. First year starters (first rounder or not) will struggle. We know about Ben, but Brady was somewhat fortunate in that he replaced Drew "statue of liberty" Bledsoe. Smith looked bad at SF last year, with Gore, pretty good.

Going into the year, there were questions about his arm, most of this chatter has faded away.

I think the fumbling and to a lesser extent the ints have been a problem, and may continue to be a problem.

I think this is me but last year, I felt that Charlie was more prone to running when plays broke down. I thought that he was extermely effective when things went bad, almost "McNabbish". This year he still runs, but will toss the ball out of bounds as well. I have mixed feelings about making him a stationary QB.

We really don't know what Davidson will do if he sticks around. My feeling is that you design the offense around the abilities of the personnel. I never felt that this concept was captured by Mo. Personally, I think that Frye/Winslow/Edwards would do better in a WCO offense, but that is my perception.

Finally, we need to figure out before the end of the season, where the Browns (Davidson) are going with the OL. The 39 sacks are way too many. Some of them can be dropped on Frye, or on the offensive play design, or the backs, but the OL has given up their share as well. The lack of a running game abiet personnel (backs or line) has made the Browns a bit one dimensional. To me it is the one item that is holding back the team.

[color:"white"]What? What? Someone say something about the WCO? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

NFL offense 101 (or something similiar)...........Put the offense in rhythm and everyone starts to play better. Get Chuck into an attack where he makes his calls, his drop, his read, and his throw in time, and we'll see the guy stop holding the ball too long. Make him throw on time and you'll see a guy who's mechanics start to click. If that happens, then we'll know whether or not his accuracy is good enough, or if some of these recent throws are the exception.

Chuck's arm is still a question mark, yet while I was discouraged earlier in the year when his throws were scattered all over the place in bad weather, he did much better on Sunday in the conditions.

I'll say again, all I want to see is progress as a passer. Right now, his rating is exactly one point higher than last season, hehehe. The mobility saves him right now which is a big plus. The fumbles are a TBD issue, and the accuracy question should be somewhat brought into focus by the end of the season.

I'm still not convinced, but I still say he deserves more time. [/color]

There was a post earlier in this thread where it was stated that with Frye as the QB, the Browns' Defense has to hold the opposing quarterback to a QB rating of less than 45 in order to win the game.... every game we have won the opposing QB was below a 45 rating...

That's an interpretation that seems to have been overlooked and is a major problem with using stats as a Be All/End All to a discussion. Look at statistics long enough and you can find a way to make them say anything you want them to say....