Crennel benching Frye, ...how was that excusable? Options

[Jason Wood]

OK, I get that Charlie Frye has no business being an NFL starting QB. I also get that on the margin, Derek Anderson appeared to play better. All that said, I found the decision to pull Frye midway through GAME ONE just incredulous. I mean, Crennel and Chuds spent the entire offseason vacillating between Frye and Anderson. Then when it looks to everyone that Quinn should probably be thrown to the wolves because a green, rookie Quinn is better than either, Crennel and Phil Savage go out of their way to "teach the kid a lesson" and keep him out of the starting lineup.

But the point is, they supposedly spent all preseason evaluating Frye and Anderson. Then, after one half of the first game against a dominant defense/division rival; they change their minds!?!?? To me that sends such a strong message that the coaches are flying blind; that they have no clue and they themselves are incapable of evaluating the QB position on their own team.

Pulling Frye like that essentially makes him a eunuch. How can they possibly justify putting Frye into another game at this point? They can't. So why not just trade/release him?

I'm guessing Crennel will make it through the season only because he's inextricably linked with Savage. But I wouldn't be shocked to see them both shown the door at season's end.

[placeholder98]

i thought it was a good decision.

for some reason that was the morning game i was watching the most and frye was atrocious. if this is how frye/anderson will play, you may as well start the quinn experiment next week.

granted the pitt d is good, but cleveland looked in complete disarray.

[Andy Dufresne]

What's the O/U for "Games until Romeo is fired?"

6?

[Jason Wood]

i thought it was a good decision.

for some reason that was the morning game i was watching the most and frye was atrocious. if this is how frye/anderson will play, you may as well start the quinn experiment next week.

granted the pitt d is good, but cleveland looked in complete disarray.

Bagger, for me Quinn is a whole entire issue. If they wanted to send Quinn a message by not starting him Week One, that's their choice (not one I personally agree with but hey, I'm not the coach). But to pull the guy they declared the winner of the QB contest after a half, for Derek Anderson no less? Just speaks to how woeful that franchise is, when it should be one of the league's jewels.

[B-Deep]

i thought it was a good decision.

for some reason that was the morning game i was watching the most and frye was atrocious. if this is how frye/anderson will play, you may as well start the quinn experiment next week.

granted the pitt d is good, but cleveland looked in complete disarray.

Bagger, for me Quinn is a whole entire issue. If they wanted to send Quinn a message by not starting him Week One, that's their choice (not one I personally agree with but hey, I'm not the coach). But to pull the guy they declared the winner of the QB contest after a half, for Derek Anderson no less? Just speaks to how woeful that franchise is, when it should be one of the league's jewels.

c'mon Jason, you make it sound like they flipped a coin to see who stared.

Oh, wait, nevermind...

[Stillers Jr.]

OK, I get that Charlie Frye has no business being an NFL starting QB. I also get that on the margin, Derek Anderson appeared to play better. All that said, I found the decision to pull Frye midway through GAME ONE just incredulous. I mean, Crennel and Chuds spent the entire offseason vacillating between Frye and Anderson. Then when it looks to everyone that Quinn should probably be thrown to the wolves because a green, rookie Quinn is better than either, Crennel and Phil Savage go out of their way to "teach the kid a lesson" and keep him out of the starting lineup.

But the point is, they supposedly spent all preseason evaluating Frye and Anderson. Then, after one half of the first game against a dominant defense/division rival; they change their minds!?!?? To me that sends such a strong message that the coaches are flying blind; that they have no clue and they themselves are incapable of evaluating the QB position on their own team.

Pulling Frye like that essentially makes him a eunuch. How can they possibly justify putting Frye into another game at this point? They can't. So why not just trade/release him?

I'm guessing Crennel will make it through the season only because he's inextricably linked with Savage. But I wouldn't be shocked to see them both shown the door at season's end.

I agree with what you say and you also snuck in "vacillating " in a post...you don't see that often. Kudos

[teamroc]

The way Frye got hit, I wouldn't start Quinn until after the Ravens/Dolphins week 4/5.

Pulling Frye. I don't know. It's hard to know what goes on behind the scenes. Was Frye making mistake after mistake? Did Frye give up? Did he say something?

It's hard to really know what was going on. With no real knowledge of the situation, from afar, sure it looks dumb.

[Chase Stuart]

I think you're being unfairly harsh on Crennel, Jason. After all, if Dave Wannstedt once did the same thing, how bad could it be?

[Jason Wood]

I think you're being unfairly harsh on Crennel, Jason. After all, if Dave Wannstedt once did the same thing, how bad could it be?

That's a good one, GB

[Joe Bryant]

Absolutely agree Jason.

And I have to say I'm not surprised at all Crennel did this. He's done nothing but give the impression he can't make a decision there.

I truly hope they really don't think Quinn is ready. If this truly is about "showing him a lesson" they're more inept than even I thought.

J

[Judge Smails]

Pulling Frye like that essentially makes him a eunuch

Woody can paint a word picture, can't he?

[jurb26]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

[placeholder98]

i thought it was a good decision.

for some reason that was the morning game i was watching the most and frye was atrocious. if this is how frye/anderson will play, you may as well start the quinn experiment next week.

granted the pitt d is good, but cleveland looked in complete disarray.

Bagger, for me Quinn is a whole entire issue. If they wanted to send Quinn a message by not starting him Week One, that's their choice (not one I personally agree with but hey, I'm not the coach). But to pull the guy they declared the winner of the QB contest after a half, for Derek Anderson no less? Just speaks to how woeful that franchise is, when it should be one of the league's jewels.

well i agree with you here.

it is in complete disarray.

[s_ezy]

Jason did you watch Frye play?
he looked awful, like a deer in headlights out there.
consistenly over/under throwing recievers and making bad decisions
i can agree with Romeo on replacing Frye if he felt that with Frye in the game we were not going to win.

[Joe Bryant]

Did sort of remind me of Joe Gibbs with the quick hook of Patrick Ramsey...

J

[Q-Bert]

I think you're being unfairly harsh on Crennel, Jason. After all, if Dave Wannstedt once did the same thing, how bad could it be?

Joe Gibbs did the same thing with Ramsey/Brunell a few years ago. I thought it was dumb then and I think it was dumb now.

[Jason Wood]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

Jurb...as I said, Anderson looked better, no question. But if Anderson is such a better QB, why didn't the coaches name him the Week One starter after four+ months of evaluation? That's what is baffling; by pulling Frye they're admitting within the first 30 minutes of the season that they've really got no clue who the best 11 players on offense are.

[jurb26]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

Jurb...as I said, Anderson looked better, no question. But if Anderson is such a better QB, why didn't the coaches name him the Week One starter after four+ months of evaluation? That's what is baffling; by pulling Frye they're admitting within the first 30 minutes of the season that they've really got no clue who the best 11 players on offense are.

Ummm, no I disagree. By pulling Frye, they are saying that 35 yds of total offense, 2 turnovers, a whopping 1 1st down and not crossing midfield in 7 drives is unacceptable QB play and overall offensive play at the NFL level. No matter who the defense is.

[Jason Wood]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

Jurb...as I said, Anderson looked better, no question. But if Anderson is such a better QB, why didn't the coaches name him the Week One starter after four+ months of evaluation? That's what is baffling; by pulling Frye they're admitting within the first 30 minutes of the season that they've really got no clue who the best 11 players on offense are.

Ummm, no I disagree. By pulling Frye, they are saying that 35 yds of total offense, 2 turnovers, a whopping 1 1st down and not crossing midfield in 7 drives is unacceptable QB play and overall offensive play at the NFL level. No matter who the defense is.

Right, and what happens in Week Two? Let's say they start Anderson and he stinks up the joint. How on Earth do Crennel and the offensive coaches convince Frye and more importantly the other guys in the huddle, that Frye is capable of stepping in and leading them to victory?

If Frye doesn't see the field for the rest of the year, then I can understand the move. But how likely is that?

[twitch]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

there you go. bottom line, rock solid.

[Banger]

I think it's pretty simple actually...Anderson won the coin flip for the 2nd half.

In all seriousness, I had the same exact thought. How can you bench a guy after 1 half after naming him the starter against a top defense. You have to give him at least a game to take his lumps.

This post has been edited by Banger: Sep 10 2007, 11:02 AM

[Josh the FunkDOC]

The problem is that Frye looked easily better than Anderson in the preseason. But that game...good golly. As someone who's had season tickets in the Dawg Pound every year, I can say with confidence that it was the single worst performance I have ever seen by any player on the New Browns. Standing there in the pocket for about 79 years, throwing into double coverage with NO PRESSURE on him, it was a real tour de force.

As dumb as it looks, I don't know how else it could have been handled. The evidence before the season pointed to Frye, but someone who plays like that does not deserve to take another snap for this team. Gawd I hope Quinn can learn the playbook soon...

-Josh

[jurb26]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

Jurb...as I said, Anderson looked better, no question. But if Anderson is such a better QB, why didn't the coaches name him the Week One starter after four+ months of evaluation? That's what is baffling; by pulling Frye they're admitting within the first 30 minutes of the season that they've really got no clue who the best 11 players on offense are.

Ummm, no I disagree. By pulling Frye, they are saying that 35 yds of total offense, 2 turnovers, a whopping 1 1st down and not crossing midfield in 7 drives is unacceptable QB play and overall offensive play at the NFL level. No matter who the defense is.

Right, and what happens in Week Two? Let's say they start Anderson and he stinks up the joint. How on Earth do Crennel and the offensive coaches convince Frye and more importantly the other guys in the huddle, that Frye is capable of stepping in and leading them to victory?

If Frye doesn't see the field for the rest of the year, then I can understand the move. But how likely is that?

I'm pretty sure Romeo was more concerned with getting his offense going and having a chance at winning the game (as foolhardy as that may be in hinds sight) than the delicate feelings of Frye. If you watched the game you would know that the confidence of Frye had to already be shot as the Clev fans started booing the daylights out of him and chanting "Brady, Brady, Brady" well before Romeo took him out of the game.

This post has been edited by jurb26: Sep 10 2007, 10:49 AM

[twitch]

I think it's pretty simple actually...Anderson won the coin flip for the 2nd half.

see, therein lies the problem.....that coin theyre using for these decisions needs three sides......heads, tails, and SENSE.

[KnowledgeReignsS...]

I think what happens here is Crennel gives too much weight to how Frye looked in practice and not how he looked in games previously. Common and easy mistake to make.

[FavreCo]

What's the O/U for "Games until Romeo is fired?"

6?

I'm going to say he makes it past 6 but barely. He is definately the 1st coaching casualty.

[jurb26]

What's the O/U for "Games until Romeo is fired?"

6?

I'm going to say he makes it past 6 but barely. He is definately the 1st coaching casualty.

Gruden down?

[FavreCo]

Let me add that Eli Manning struggled last year when Tim Carter was lining up as a starting WR. You had to know the passing game in Cleveland would suffer when a lesser QB has to see Tim Carter in the huddle.

[Andy Dufresne]

Let me add that Eli Manning struggled last year when Tim Carter was lining up as a starting WR. You had to know the passing game in Cleveland would suffer when a lesser QB has to see Tim Carter in the huddle.

Tim Carter is to blame?

I knew it.

[Tiger Fan]

Didn't Rodney Peete get benched at halftime for DelHomme who lead them to a Super Bowl berth?

[dancingbones]

I was one of the few who thought that Frye had it in him to put up some decent QB play in the NFL. After watching that game, I have to wonder what was I thinking? Count me now in the camp that says get Quinn in there ASAP. Tough defenses or no, with a QB who can 1) get rid of the ball quick if need be and 2) hit an open receiver, the Browns offense has the playmakers to do some damage. I don't think there is any doubt that Quinn gives them a better chance to win at this point than either Frye or Anderson.

As to the point about Romeo basically being a wuss of a coach who can't evaluate the talent on his own team, I think there is a lot of truth in that. Keeping a superior player on the bench in an effort to "send him a message", to the detriment of the whole team seems like a great way to lose your head coaching job, Romeo. I want a coach with some fire, who will absolutely not tolerate the horrendous play that we witnessed on Sunday. Romeo does not give any appearance of being that guy.

[twitch]

OK, I get that Charlie Frye has no business being an NFL starting QB. I also get that on the margin, Derek Anderson appeared to play better. All that said, I found the decision to pull Frye midway through GAME ONE just incredulous. I mean, Crennel and Chuds spent the entire offseason vacillating between Frye and Anderson. Then when it looks to everyone that Quinn should probably be thrown to the wolves because a green, rookie Quinn is better than either, Crennel and Phil Savage go out of their way to "teach the kid a lesson" and keep him out of the starting lineup.

But the point is, they supposedly spent all preseason evaluating Frye and Anderson. Then, after one half of the first game against a dominant defense/division rival; they change their minds!?!?? To me that sends such a strong message that the coaches are flying blind; that they have no clue and they themselves are incapable of evaluating the QB position on their own team.

Pulling Frye like that essentially makes him a eunuch. How can they possibly justify putting Frye into another game at this point? They can't. So why not just trade/release him?

I'm guessing Crennel will make it through the season only because he's inextricably linked with Savage. But I wouldn't be shocked to see them both shown the door at season's end.

J, you couldnt be more on point with this post. I agree that both Savage and Crennel could be in trouble at season's end, and at this point I dont care what kind of bumbling theyve done with the QBs. They can salvage it all and gain redemption by doing one thing...putting Quinn in at QB. We all understand their reasons for being careful with the guy, but the kid gloves need to come off in week 2.



Fixed

This post has been edited by twitch: Sep 10 2007, 11:02 AM

[amnesiac]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

Jurb...as I said, Anderson looked better, no question. But if Anderson is such a better QB, why didn't the coaches name him the Week One starter after four+ months of evaluation? That's what is baffling; by pulling Frye they're admitting within the first 30 minutes of the season that they've really got no clue who the best 11 players on offense are.

i think they desperately wanted to name Anderson the starter, but couldn't justify it based on his preseason performance.

what's lost in this discussion, amidst running down Crennell, is the fact that he only has Frye and Anderson to chose from in the first place. that's the real shame here. (i'm not considering Quinn at this point, because the management has declared he should not play.)

[nxmehta]

Jason, I'm going to have to completely agree with you. I've been a Crennel supporter for a while, but this move (on top of the performance yesterday) was just ridiculous. It's obvious that Frye wasn't ready and was playing awful, and that Anderson played better, no doubt. So in that sense it was the right decision. The problem though, as you've pointed out, is that having to switch in the first 1.5 quarters points to a total lack of talent evaluation, preparation, and leadership that has really hurt the Browns since the return. For some reason this always happens at the QB position to the Browns (other positions don't get tossed around nearly as much).

What really scares me is the effect this move will have on locker room morale. I mean the Browns already have a hard enough time convincing themselves that they can win, but when the leadership shows that they can't steer the ship in the first minutes of the first game, then how are the players supposed to believe that they can win? If you look at the postgame interviews from the official site you can see it all over their faces. Braylon Edwards was asked straight up if he thought that the team had the mental toughness to bounce back for next week. He started out saying well, "if you asked me last year i would say we're really fragile and no, but this year we have new guys." You could clearly that he was shaken. Charlie Frye's interview was even worse- he looked more lost and fragile than he did on the field.

This move tells the team that Romeo doesn't know what he needs to do to win. I think since they set the precedent in week 1 that they'll flip flop at QB until after the bye, like QBBC. While that happens and we're waiting for Quinn, all Browns fans can hope is that every game isn't as disappointing and mind-boggling as this one.

[FavreCo]

Let me add that Eli Manning struggled last year when Tim Carter was lining up as a starting WR. You had to know the passing game in Cleveland would suffer when a lesser QB has to see Tim Carter in the huddle.

Tim Carter is to blame?

I knew it.

Facing Tim Carter as a starting WR is better than having Deion Sanders as one of your cornerbacks. Carter is a shutdown WR if there ever was one. He eliminates 1/2 of the field with his presence.

What? You think he's good or something?

[Andy Dufresne]

Let me add that Eli Manning struggled last year when Tim Carter was lining up as a starting WR. You had to know the passing game in Cleveland would suffer when a lesser QB has to see Tim Carter in the huddle.

Tim Carter is to blame?

I knew it.

Facing Tim Carter as a starting WR is better than having Deion Sanders as one of your cornerbacks. Carter is a shutdown WR if there ever was one. He eliminates 1/2 of the field with his presence.

What? You think he's good or something?

LOL @ the bolded.

[nxmehta]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

Jurb...as I said, Anderson looked better, no question. But if Anderson is such a better QB, why didn't the coaches name him the Week One starter after four+ months of evaluation? That's what is baffling; by pulling Frye they're admitting within the first 30 minutes of the season that they've really got no clue who the best 11 players on offense are.

i think they desperately wanted to name Anderson the starter, but couldn't justify it based on his preseason performance.

what's lost in this discussion, amidst running down Crennell, is the fact that he only has Frye and Anderson to chose from in the first place. that's the real shame here. (i'm not considering Quinn at this point, because the management has declared he should not play.)

This is the sad point that no one's talking about. The draft plan this year did NOT include Quinn- it was sheer luck that he dropped that far! The front office's original plan was to only have Frye and Anderson! That is sad. I know you have to build the team one step at a time, but yikes... Savage, you're better than that!

This season was doomed from the start. I don't think there was any sort of plan in place to win this year. It's just "wait till next year", a familiar phrase for Browns' fans.

[Steelnation]

I 110% agree with you Jason

[Godsbrother]

Bill Cowher did the same to Jim Miller way back in 1996. Supposedly Cowher was torn between Mike Tomczak, the veteran career backup, and Kordell Stewart who at that time was still slash and clearly not ready for the starting gig and Miller who looked slightly better than the other two in preseason.

Cowher named Jim Miller the starter for the opening game against Jacksonville and whole team looked flat. At halftime Cowher pulled Miller (9-17-83-0-0) and replaced him with Mike Tomczak but the Steelers still lost the game 24-9.

After the game Cowher claimed the team needed a veteran quarterback and Tomczak would remain the starter for the year. The Steelers went 10-6, defeated the Colts in the 1st round of the playoffs but lost to the Parcell's Patriot team that got beat by the Packers in the SB.

In retrospect Cowher may have been right about the switch but many including myself thought Miller got the shaft. How in the heck can you go from starter to the 3rd QB in one half of the first game?

[cstu]

Crennel had a brilliant strategy to show the world that neither Frye or Anderson can play QB and that it's time for Quinn. My gut tells me that he starts Quinn next week in a game where Quinn has a good chance of putting up big numbers against the Bengals.

[Banger]

Crennel had a brilliant strategy to show the world that neither Frye or Anderson can play QB and that it's time for Quinn. My gut tells me that he starts Quinn next week in a game where Quinn has a good chance of putting up big numbers against the Bengals.

I think it will be a couple more putrid performances before Quinn sees the field. I doubt it will be next week.

[JohnDoe]

Did sort of remind me of Joe Gibbs with the quick hook of Patrick Ramsey...

J

I was thinking the same thing. Here is an article from USA Today on the QB switch.

[Franknbeans]

You sound like a sour Frye owner. Did you watch the game? The guy looked absolutely lost out there. I didn't see a single pass that was on target and he had worse pocket awareness than Grossman vs. SD. Clev had 35 yds of total offense in Frye's 7 drives and 2 turnovers, 1 Int (which was god awful) and 1 fumble. They were down 17-0 on top of it. Sometimes bringing in a fresh QB sparks up the offense. In Anderson's 1st drive, he took Clev 45 yds down field (this was the 1st time the even crossed mid field!) and put them in scoring position until he was sacked for a 10 yd loss and fumbled. So, it appears it was not a bad decision.

Again, Clev had 35 yds of total offense in 7 drives with 2 turnovers and had not passed midfield with Frye at QB!

Jurb...as I said, Anderson looked better, no question. But if Anderson is such a better QB, why didn't the coaches name him the Week One starter after four+ months of evaluation?

Because they were wrong then and they're wrong now. Quinn is the best QB they have.

[bostonfred]

I'd hate to see these professional football players get their feelings hurt while the head coach tried to make an adjustment to potentially help them win this game, but maybe Crennel thought that the Steelers were too well prepared for Frye and he wanted to change up the offense. Everyone involved knows that neither Frye nor Anderson is the quarterback of the future, so it's not like they're hurting the team's confidence in their future leader. Besides, even if it doesn't help them win the game, I think it also sends the message that if you suck on the field, you're getting benched, no matter who you are or what position you play. In the long run, that's a good message to send, even if you don't agree with it as a fan.

[Mike]

Maybe they truly felt Frye was better from their 4+ months of evaluation, but at some point no matter how good your key player is - QB/goalie/pitcher/keeper - if he's getting shelled you have to throw him a life line. He may be ruined forever, otherwise.

[Black Box]

Crennel:

Does the guy have any other facial expression?

[GordonGekko]

Quinn may or may not be ready, but tossing him in the fire early is a good way to screw up a QB for good. Lots of young QBs have been burned out and broken mentally that way.

Whether Frye and Anderson are the right QBs for the Browns right now isn't as important as to whether Frye and Anderson are the right veteran mentors who can keep the ship running and teach Quinn something until the kid is ready.

Anyone who is criticizing the Frye move and say it's independent of Quinn is pretty much lying. If Quinn wasn't on that roster, Crennel wouldn't be taking the heat for what he did. If a QB is sucking badly and it's clear he's not going to help you accomplish what you want, you pull the guy. So what if they spent 4 months with the kid grooming him to be ready. How much money and time was spent on Akili Smith? Or any number of QBs that busted?

Sometimes you don't know what you have until you get there. God knows that was the case with Tom Brady.

Crennel made a decision on how long he wants Quinn to sit on that bench. For better or worse, he's sticking to his plan for Quinn.

It's only WEEK ONE. Yes the Browns probably won't be very good, but it's only WEEK ONE. Hell I think Ryan Leaf won his first game as a starting QB. Did that give you any indication of his NFL future? Maybe Anderson can put together a couple of solid games here soon and give Quinn some time to acclimate himself to the pro game.

If the Browns hit big on Quinn, he could solidify them for 10-15 years. No need to burn the candle on both ends and torch the kid out too fast before he's ready.

[barista]

Maybe coach should worry less about who's chucking the ball and more about how to pick up the blitz.

[KnowledgeReignsS...]

Did sort of remind me of Joe Gibbs with the quick hook of Patrick Ramsey...

J

I was thinking the same thing. Here is an article from USA Today on the QB switch.

And Ramsey has been so good since that benching with other teams. He really stuck it to Gibbs there while the Skins were merely going to the 2nd round of the playoffs.

[twitch]

Two examples of QBs who started from day 1:

Troy Aikman. Aikman started for the Cowboys from day 1, had a 1-11 record his rookie season, got dinged and missed 4 games. The only player of relevance he played with on offense that year was Michael Irvin, so he had his playmaker already on the team. His 2nd year, Aikman had a 7-7 record, got dinged during the season and missed 2 games. His 3rd year, Aikman was leading the team on a playoff drive, when again, he got dinged and missed the last several games of the regular season. Steve Beurlein started while Aikman was out, and helped lead the team into the playoffs. Aikman took over for Beurlein during the 1st playoff game, then went on to lead the Cowboys to a Superbowl title that year....his 3rd season in the NFL. He never looked back.


Peyton Manning. Manning started every game his rookie season. The team finished 3-13 and Manning had 26TDs with 28INTs. The next season the Colts finished 13-3. Manning never looked back.

These are 2 of the success stories. There are others, but these are the 2 most prominent in my memory. There are obviously many examples of QBs thrown into the fire that failed, but at this point, based on Quinn's talent and success at ND, Im more willing to compare him to Aikman and Manning then to David Carr and Tim Couch. Some guys are great and great things follow. Others simply arent and their respective stories tell the tale. My feeling has simply been that if a player is great, whether you start him from day 1 or day 400, his greatness will surface. Id only expect a franchise would choose to compare their young franchise player to a guy like Aikman or Manning than to Ryan Leaf. The men up high in Cleveland will obviously do whatever they feel is best, but I cant help but think that they dont actually know what that is.