DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Into the Frying Pan

Column - Quarterback has not proven he is the answer, but his fate and Crennel's should not be linked

Advertisement
With five games to play in this tortuous season, two things are certain:
Romeo Crennel has not proven he is the right coach to guide the Browns to the playoffs and Charlie Frye has not proven he is the right quarterback to take the Browns to the playoffs.
When questions exist about the two most important positions on a football team, it is in deep trouble. And though the head coach and quarterback are closely linked, they cannot be analyzed together.
Would Crennel seem a better coach with a better quarterback? There is no doubt he would. That means General Manager Phil Savage has to stick the next coach with Frye if Crennel does get fired, because it would be unfair to Crennel to admit after the fact that Frye was a mistake.
Frye looks beaten physically and mentally. He takes a pounding week after week behind an offensive line that has to be blown up after this season. Savage is going to have to come up with four new starters. That is a nearly impossible task.
The only lineman secure is left tackle Kevin Shaffer. Right tackle Ryan Tucker was placed on the non-football injury list Tuesday. No one knows if he will play again. The Browns have to make plans to move on without him.
We have said this time and again, but the situation facing Crennel now is precisely why we advocated signing a veteran quarterback. Frye needs a break. He is not in the Mid-American Conference anymore, and those are not MAC cornerbacks he is throwing against.
I can understand the rationale of seeing how Frye responds to knowing the job was his from the start. Now Savage and Crennel have the answer - he needs help.
While the Browns were being creamed, 30-0, by the Bengals on Sunday, quarterback Carson Palmer was doing the creaming behind an offensive line that was missing three starters. That did not seem to bother him as much as it did Bengals running back Rudi Johnson.
Of course, Palmer and Frye have different pedigrees. Palmer should be better. He went to USC and was the first player chosen in the 2003 draft. Frye was a third-round pick from Akron in 2005. Palmer had a year to learn on the sideline, and he started 25 NFL games before Frye got his first start.
Players say the right things in the locker room, but I'm not sure what they really believe about Frye. He did not earn the starting job, unless you count beating out Ken Dorsey and Derek Anderson as earning it. He won the job by default when Trent Dilfer did not want to be here anymore.
Look closely the next time Frye is sacked, which should be about the third offensive play Sunday, when the Browns close the homestand with a game against the Chiefs. Watch to see if any teammates help him up. More often than not, he stands up on his own and looks for missing parts while the 10 other guys trudge to the sideline.
Frye is doing the best he can. It just isn't good enough.
With Braylon Edwards, Kellen Winslow Jr. and Joe Jurevicius as targets, Frye should have more than nine touchdown passes.
It is blatantly obvious offensive coordinator Jeff Davidson has no faith in Frye. Faith will have to be earned, but Frye can't earn it if the play being used doesn't call for him to throw the ball to the end zone.
The Browns are 3-8. So what if an interception late Sunday makes them 3-9? Let Frye throw the ball.
Crennel has not handled the Edwards situation well. If he follows the pattern set when he replaced Maurice Carthon too late, he will be late disciplining Edwards.
Eventually, though, that storm will pass.
Questions about Frye, however, will remain unanswered.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsi...21848&rfi=6

Troubling read.

Too bad I agree.

[color:"white"] Would Crennel seem a better coach with a better quarterback? There is no doubt he would. That means General Manager Phil Savage has to stick the next coach with Frye if Crennel does get fired[/color]

THAT'S the most troubling

Thats the part I don't like....Shaffer is the best we got <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Too bad I don't agree.

Like I said....troubling read. You can pull almost every line and say it is most troubling and true.

What is troubling is that those are not the 2 most important positions on the team. The 5 most important positions are the guys on the o-line.

I agreed with pretty much everything up to this point. I'm no longer on the bandwagon that says Carthon needed to go. Maybe from a player-support view (he'd lost the confidence of his offense), but Davidson has adequately shown that Mo's play-calling wasn't the only (or even most major) problem with this offense. At least not enough so to justify the mid-season change. Obviously opinions vary on that and rightfully so.

I also don't have any problems with how the Edwards situation has been handled unless it affects the remainder of the season. The media just likes to blow things out of proportion. RAC won't talk about how its being handled and they lash back by insinuating that nothing is being done. The media sucks and this is just another example of why. First one to find out what's up with Tucker will have it on the front page. No ethics. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Just lobbing this out for discussion, but would Frye seem like a better quarterback with a better coach? I think the flip side to what the author said is also true.. if Frye could count on 120 yards rushing a game... and if pass plays were designed that played to his strengths instead of forcing him 7 yards back to look all over the field each play, I think Frye COULD look a whole lot better too...

I agree DC,

Football is a TEAM sport, which means that while 1 position is very pivotal in the teams success, it takes a concerted effort by all players to be successful. Charlie has had decent days and has had horrid days.

And we all should be able to agree that we knew if the Oline couldn't protect Charlie early, then as the season went on he would lose confidence in his protection and other flaws would begin to surface.

People like to point to Charlie's INTs and claim he isn't getting it done, but I can almost guarantee that probably 50% or better of his INTs came from tipped balls and/or last minute hail marys. This would mean he would have around 8 INTs instead of 16, still not great number considering only 9 TDs but is doesn't look as foreboding. Add he's been sacked 43 times, I think about a dozen or so are sacks where he should have gotten rid of the ball but took the sack instead.

Charlie isn't a Montana, but he's a decent QB if we could give him time to develop. But instead we are taking the Couch route.

As far as Crennel, I'm willing to give him a 3rd year to see improvement. I have seen improvement on this team in some areas, and I am amazed at what our defense has accomplished in it's current state and with the talent we have. To me thats a great start, so this off season we should be focusing on fixing the offense.

I can't totally blame Crennel for the lack of offensive production. We all though Rueben would be a decent back to help keep defenses honest, which hasn't really happened yet. In fact if anything, we have opened up the offense a little, which has helped our run game a little. Which is sad considering how the run game has been.

Of course it doesn't help that 3 or 4 defensive guys can push our 5 linemen into the backfield on a regular basis, leaving 8 or 9 to cover.

I really, really hate this argument. "What ifs" are simply "didn't happens". Frye had some bad luck on some INTs, but has had good luck when defensive players dropped easy potential INTs as well. They tend to balance out in the end.

Folks, I'm no guru or anything,, But I know a little about "thinking in circles".. This writer can't think in complete circles and by that I mean, he says something and then says something else that makes the first thing sound stupid,,,

Example:



Then two paragraphs later he says:



Now I don't know which of those statements is true, but they both aren't.. Can't be!

If the line was consided a solid line, then the first comment would have more weight..

But since the line isn't that good (writers assessement) then how can he say that charlie hasn't proven he can blah blah blah.... Get my drift here?

Ultimately, it's unlinked thinking like that that tend to make me believe this writer hasn't really given it any thought at all,,, he's just got a deadline and needed to put words, any words, on paper and hand it in..

Not the kinda guy that I choose to listen too.... But thanks for the read anyway Focker,,,,,

A large part of Charlies problem with INTs and with sacks is that he makes poor decisions on when to throw the ball away.... like never.

I think Charlie would look better if we picked up the Blitz once in awhile. If we havn't ruined him already with this bunch of Bull-fighters we call our line, then we are well on our way.

[color:"white"]

That's about the only thing you've said in all of this that is factual.

Frye is what he is. He's always going to be the dreaded "game manager" which is nice for "he can't get it done on his own." Having a line that can't push for more than 3 yards per carry and is on pace for 60+ sacks ruins any QB, let alone a Charlie Frye.[/color]

It still comes down to protection, I see Charlie with someone in his face on 75% of the plays. Yet we never adjust anything to counter this. We don't run screens, we for some reason think we can run outside the tackles.

Frye has his faults, no doubt, but I've seen some good things at times, enough for me to say we keep him until we fix the line. Breaking another QB in half before we fix the line is not going to solve anything.

Something else that would help are Running Backs who are capable of picking up the Blitz. The whole purpose behind the Blitz is to overpower the OL with more Defenders than 5 guys can handle...

That's where the Running Backs and Tight Ends come in. If the O-Line is busy blocking the 4 rushing Linemen and there is a Corner blitz coming from the outside... It is the responsibility of the RB or Tight End to pick up the blitzer. Granted...sometimes the TE is out running a pass route, but it is also not the Center's or non-blitz side unoccupied lineman's responsibility to pick up the blitzer... That's why on pass plays, the RB is often kept in for pass protection.

Several sacks on Sunday were the direct result of the RB being unable to block....

I would like to think that we have a lot of talent on this team right now and also a pretty good coaching staff!

Granted, the team has a losing record and that is not good!

I feel that we should keep it all in tact..................see how the next five weeks pan out..........then work on rebuilding one more season with our coaching staff to make it better!

It is very easy to want to replace the entire team after such a lose as last week...........including the coaching staff and the GM...........let's see how the next five games work out!

The Edwards issue really disturbs me............he may be the most inmature player that we have had in a long time...............that will bring a team down for sure! <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

The OL is making the entire team look worse then they are..........no blocking for Charlie.............no blocking for our RBs!

It is hard for a defense to contain teams when they are on the field and wore out.............but last week the damn no huddle really wore this team out..........Cincinnati knew what they were doing! <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I really hate to hear Browns fans call for RAC's head at this point in the season..............and just as much hate bashing Charlie.............the kid has a lot of heart and is trying very hard with not a lot of blocking!

JMO! <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

In today's NFL the QB is going to have someone charging at him hell bent for leather on damn near every play. More and more often the QB is going to either have to be mobile enough to make at least one guy miss him, or get rid of the ball quickly enough that the rush itself becomes moot, or often a combination of both. Most of the good QBs today either make plays before the rush can get to them, create enough time to make a play, or are somehow blessed enough to have a line that holds off pressure every time for 5 or 6 seconds. Oh wait .. there's no one that blessed. Today's QB has to be quicker than ever. He doesn't get all day to sit in the pocket and survey the field. He has to see, understand, diagnose and make the play.

I remember back to the days of Bernie Kosar. He wanted teams to blitz. Why? Because he could make big plays when more guys were worried about trying to get to him than worried about covering his receivers. In Sunday's game we came hard after Palmer on the late TD pass, and had a rusher drawing a clear, open lane to him. He got rid of the ball so quickly that it didn't matter. A pass rush is a necessity, but when you have to blitz to generate that pass rush, you leave yourself open to being burned by a capable QB. Teams don't have that fear when it comes to the Browns. (and sorry if you don't find this "factual" Toad ... but it's absolutely true) Teams will load up the line, threaten to bring the house, bring 5 or 6 rushers, play damn near their entire defense up, and succeed doing so until and unless our QB shows he can handle it. (and I mean by burning them for doing it ... not by running 20 yards to pick up 3 ... or to get off an incomplete pass) Teams don't think we can beat them deep, and play to take away as much short stuff as they can, and try to stuff the run while trying to pressure Frye into mistakes. It's a good strategy, and teams continue doing so because it works.

As far as screens, I wish we would run some screens in the face of a blitz. A screen going to the area vacated by a blitzer is always effective.

You do know that the WR has to recognize the blitz as well correct? That's where inexperience hurts us. They ALL have to be on the same page.

Have you seen our team ever run a successful screen or draw? Rare - even when we've tried we've gone nowhere.

Our OL isn't athletic enough.

Why don't we roll him out more? It eliminates the other half of the field - taking even more pressure off the defense.

Most teams don't even need to blitz us. That's the problem. They get plenty of pressure with 7 or 8 guys in coverage - but then Charlie's holding the ball.

Corners play soft/tight coverage because they KNOW we won't have time to go deep.

Don't get me wrong. The kid hasn't shown one thing that's been impressive to me, other than toughness - but I just don't see how anyone thinks they can judge his performance at this point.

OK soup .... you tell me which receivers you know for a fact are missing blitz adjustments, and exactly how you know this. Give me examples of times you have seen it, and how you recognized it. I further want to knwo what percentage of plays it happens on. I want proof, since you offer this as assumptive evidence.

We have Northcutt, who is a vet. We have JJ, who is a vet. We have young guys in Edwards and Cribbs. (who has had limited offensive snaps) Then we have our leading receiver, Kellen Winslow, and top backup TE Heiden. (our 2nd leading receiver) Are they all missing these blitz keys, or are only certain ones? If so, who and when?

I don't have access to game film or time to do that, I'm playing Devils Advocate with you - you are stuck on this being a QB game and not a team game. I've already shown you when we run he's successful. Problem is, we never run. Vice versa, you show me where the WR read the blitz and was the hot route and Frye missed it.

I recall people ripping on Frye for Sunday, when it was 3rd and long and a rusher came free and Winslow was the hot route so Frye dumped it to him 3 yards out when we needed 11. Had he not done that he'd of been hammered for a sack.

Just playing devil's advocate, huh?



I must have missed the nuance, what with the condescending attitude and all ...... <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


More and more the NFL is a QB league. Teams who win with average performance from their QB are few and far between.

Last year, the top 10 QBs in rating were as follow:

Peyton Manning IND
Carson Palmer CIN
Ben Roethlisberger PIT
Matt Hasselbeck SEA
Marc Bulger STL
Tom Brady NE
Jake Plummer DEN
Trent Green KC
Byron Leftwich JAC
Drew Brees SD

Wanna guess how many of these 10 QBs made the playoffs? How about 70% of them.

Oddly enough, only 1 of the QBs ranked 20-30 made the playoffs. (Eli Manning)

As of right now, it's about the same case for 2006, with Marc Bulger, Donovan McNabb, and David Carr being the exceptions.

This is a QB league, and no matter what Savage says about "buliding around a guy" ...... you still need that guy if you want to win.

Wanna cross-reference those guy's team rushing games, sacks, etc?

I'm not sure its that straight forward (nothing ever is)

Not too big a request, huh? <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> lol

The best rushing offense was Atlanta. The Redskins and Chiefs were other teams failing to make the playoffs who were ranked in the top 10.

Sacks are trickier. The top "10" are actually the top 14. Among this top 14 are lunminaries like Tennessee, Detroit, Washington, Green Bay and Miami.

Ironically enough, the better teams also scored more, and gave up fewer points. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Can we deduce that good teams make their QB's look good?
And possibly the reverse?

Well, we can look at what QBs change teams, and what the results are when a good QB is plugged into a previously bad team. This year we had Drew Brees and Steve McNair as the 2 top QBs changing teams. While there were some other considerations, each guy has dramatically improved his new team.

New Orleans is now the #1 offensive team in the entire NFL, averaging 402 yards/game. Baltimore is at 301 yards/game. Baltimore is averaging 22.6 points/game, and New Orleans checks in at 25.1 PPG.

IN 2005, Baltimore managed 293 yards/game, and New Orleans 314. Baltimore averaged 16.6 PPG, and New Orleans only 14.7. (only .2 PPG more than we did)

Oddly enough, each team has a slightly lower rushing yards/game average in 2006 than their 2005 versions.

[color:"white"]

Nah, that'd make too damned much sense.

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd skipped over entire threads and posts due to repetition and redundancy.

I need more booze.[/color]

I Concur...
I can think of a few QB's on both sides
...
Teams that make players look good...
Big Ben
Delhomme
Leftwich
Grossman
Soon to be Cutler


QB'S that make teams look good...
Hasslebeck
Breese
Brady
Peyton
McNair

after a loss.. a lot of stuff is said that that shouldnt be said...

both RAC and Frye should not be on the chopping block yet..

its still too soon to judge...

I like RAC and I like his style...

I was a lil upset with Frye... but.. I like his style...

You still miss it.

Peyton Manning IND EDGE JAMES - 1506 yds 13 TDs
Carson Palmer CIN RJ 1458 12 TDs
Ben Roethlisberger PIT #5 in the NFL in rushing
Matt Hasselbeck SHAUN ALEXANDER 1880yds 27 TDs
Marc Bulger STL - lower end rushing 13 TDs
Tom Brady NE - lower end rushing - 16 rush TDs
Jake Plummer DEN #2 in the NFL in rushing
Trent Green KC LARRY JOHNSON 1750 yds 20 TDs
Byron Leftwich JAC #10 in the NFL in rushing
Drew Brees SD LT 1462 yds 18 TDs

ELI MANNING - TIKI BARBER 1860 yds rushing

Cleveland - lower end rushing (les than all th above) - 4 TDs

Bulger is on a team with Holt and Isaac Bruce
Brady is an exception to the rule. So 1 out of 10 fits what you want. 8 out of 10 can run the ball nearly at will. Are you understanding it yet? This year we are 30th in the NFL in rushing - 29th in rush attempts.

Why can't we judge his performance? New employees are judged 60 days after orientation. Frye has played close to 20 NFL games and although we can't predict the distant future we can predict the near future

If we do not improve the run game dramatically [not incrementally] very soon Frye will be either crippled physically as well as emotionally. Since nothing barring the Lord's intervention will improve the immediate play of the OL we need to spending and drafting on the Offensive line almost entirely this offseason....hell, this entire season has been an "offseason"!

If our running backs are not shell shocked yet we can stay with what we have as I suspect that they are adequate once we develop some cohesion on the OL.

I don't see the WR,TE &QB squabble as a biggee unless we have a QB with tender skin...if so he needs to become a guidance counselor rather than an NFL QB.

Can we kidnap the Denver OL Coach and hold him in Berea to teach the new OL members...maybe we could promise him 71 virgins [think we can find that many in the Cleveland area?]

Watch the dissension dissapate when we can actually run for first downs on 3rd and 2. If our QB can be upright more than 4 seconds without running for his life we can evaluate what Frye has and doesn't have.

Better hope the defensive side doesn't start grumbling about the O side anytime soon.

On our 1st drive we ran twice for 7 yards. (out of 6 plays)

2nd drive started with a 5 yard run, then we couldn't convert a 3rd and 1.

3rd drive: 1 pass for no gain, 1 Frye run for 2, 1 incomplete.

4th drive: Frye to Cutt for 43 ... then 3 more passes and a long FG try.

5th drive: 5 passes, no points.

In the 1st half, we had 6 running plays. I seem to recall 12 total for the game, so at least we're balanced. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Of course, by the time our first drive of the 2nd half started, we were down by 23, and needed to score in bunches .... and quickly. Generally not the time to try and establish the run .... so thank goodness we were playing the absolutely worst pass defense in the entire NFL.

Yeah .... that worked. We made them look like the Ravens.

I think you forgot to mention that on that 3rd and 1 that we ran it and lost yards.

Keep leaving the facts out in your blaming of 1 guy for all the teams woes.

Oh dear God! <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[color:"white"]Yes my son?[/color]

Hey Ytown, Are you a RAC hater too? We've had 4 Coaches in 8 or 9 years and God knows how many QBs. Is there any chance its not the Coach or the QB fault? The one thing in common I see is the O-line sucks. We can change Coaches and QBs 2 or 3 times a year if we want and we have , but it all comes back to the O-line.

I'm undecided on Crennel.

People hate on the OL ... so we make changes ... and changes .... and changes .... and changes ..... and the line gets lambasted even when they play a solid game as they did against the Bengals ..... but they suck .... they suck ... it's all their fault because they suck ..... <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

The line wasn't the reason we lost to the Bengals.

Toad ... you can be God, or you can be a Browns fan ...... the last 15 years or so show that you can't be borh.