Crennel benching Frye (1 Viewer)

[dickey moe]

I think that Romeo has demonstrated on a number of occasions that he is not an intelligent coach.

 

[Warpig]

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

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think it's all that shocking for Frye to have been on such a short leash. A few people have mentioned coin flips . . . but the truth is, it probably was close to a coin flip between Frye and Anderson in the first place. It's not like they pulled Peyton Manning to stick in Jim Sorgi after a half of play. That wouldn't make sense because Manning is soooo far ahead of Sorgi that there's absolutely nothing Manning could do in a half to erase his lead. But with Frye and Anderson, if it was close to a coin flip between them, it shouldn't take much to reverse the decision.

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.

If they made a mistake by starting Frye over Anderson, should they correct it, or should they compound the mistake by keeping Frye in there over Anderson in order to avoid "admitting" anything?I really don't like the "admitting" argument in any context. "[insert team] can't give up on [insert bust] or they'll be admitting he was a wasted pick, etc." I don't think teams care about admitting stuff; I think they care about winning. The question for the Browns between Frye and Anderson is simply, which QB gives the team the best chance to win?

As for Quinn . . . I can understand not wanting to throw him into the fire yet. Having nobody open and being sacked every other play may not be good for his long-term development.

 

[Fallerjw]

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?

as a Browns fan I say, "Please let this happen".

 

[Penguin]

I would be shocked if Romeo is not fired after this season. Quinn would need to come in mid season and have a Vince Young type affect, even then I think Crennel's gone.

 

[Fallerjw]

I don't think it's all that shocking for Frye to have been on such a short leash. A few people have mentioned coin flips . . . but the truth is, it probably was close to a coin flip between Frye and Anderson in the first place. It's not like they pulled Peyton Manning to stick in Jim Sorgi after a half of play. That wouldn't make sense because Manning is soooo far ahead of Sorgi that there's absolutely nothing Manning could do in a half to erase his lead. But with Frye and Anderson, if it was close to a coin flip between them, it shouldn't take much to reverse the decision.

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.

If they made a mistake by starting Frye over Anderson, should they correct it, or should they compound the mistake by keeping Frye in there over Anderson in order to avoid "admitting" anything?I really don't like the "admitting" argument in any context. "[insert team] can't give up on [insert bust] or they'll be admitting he was a wasted pick, etc." I don't think teams care about admitting stuff; I think they care about winning. The question for the Browns between Frye and Anderson is simply, which QB gives the team the best chance to win?

As for Quinn . . . I can understand not wanting to throw him into the fire yet. Having nobody open and being sacked every other play may not be good for his long-term development.

Having watched the game, I can say that Big Ben was under pressure several times and was able to get passes away (even complete some of them). Charlie Frye looked like a deer in the head lights when the defense was closing in on him. He looked as if he'd never experienced it before, and definitely didn't know what to do. I'm not saying he wasn't getting pressured, I'm saying he made bad choices....the type of choices a player makes who hasn't been in that situation before. I feel 100% confident that Brady Quinn would make better choices at this stage of his development than Frye would. However, that doesn't mean they should be starting Quinn right now. It just means that he's already more of an NFL QB than Frye will ever be. When they want to start using him is up for debate. It sure would be nice to have the OL gel before throwing him out there, but if not, I feel that he'll play better than Frye or Anderson anyhow.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

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.

I don't see it that way Jason. To me, it wasn't a decision made by the coaches to see who's going to QB for the season or even part of it. At best, it was who was going to start Week 1's game. That's how bad it is there. It was barely giving 1 guy a shot over another because 1 guy has to, he played ridiculously and didn't take advantage of it and he was pulled.The EXACT same thing could have happened in Oakland. If you would have seen McCown in that 3rd quarter continue to flounder vs. the Lions, you very well could have seen Daunte Culpepper come in late 3rd quarter or early 4th.As far as the Quinn thing, I'm not sure I have the right answer for that. Is Cleveland a better team with him at QB, I guess maybe slightly. Does Cleveland win that game with Quinn under center, I seriously doubt it. In the end I'm not sure if it would be better to just throw him in there and take his lumps or learn a little as you go.I think he'll be in there very soon. But I will say this.......if HE is pulled after only 1/2 of football, then I think that would be God awful. To me, if you make that decision to go with him, you're saying let's put this guy in there and he's going to learn how to play this game, unfortunately the hard way.If you start playing that benching game with your 1st round QB, then that's when I think it would be inexcusable.

 

[Sinrman]

Pretty much tells me that Romeo wasn't real sure on WHO the starter would be Week 1. Since Frye has a bit more experience there, he went with him, but had him on a VERY short leash. The Brownie fans won't stand for getting blown out AT home to the hated Steelers, and the coach knew this. Frye looked awful, and thus the quick change.

 

[HangingInThere]

The question of what was Romeo thinking(?) has next to nothing to do with Quinn. The real question is: have any of you ever seen an uninjured starter get pulled after one quarter of the first game? Romeo made a big deal about the preseason being a "competition", and not a "controversy", and said the competition made both of them better.

Yet, after all those months and scrimmages and games, he couldn't commit to the guy he had decided was the better QB? C'mon. Lots of quarterbacks have bad, even horrendous quarters; I've never seen one pulled that early in the first game. Yes, Frye's play was execrable..but it wasn't that different from what we all (and especially Romeo) should have come to expect. Spending all that time (and coin flips) in choosing a starter, then yanking him that quickly was just bush league.

And no, I'm no Frye fan (who could be?). I am a Cleveland homer just counting the days until we get an actual QB, and an actual coach that can handle his personnel....although I'm only vaguely optimistic about the former, and despairing of the latter.

 

[TommyGilmore]

The question of what was Romeo thinking(?) has next to nothing to do with Quinn. The real question is: have any of you ever seen an uninjured starter get pulled after one quarter of the first game? Romeo made a big deal about the preseason being a "competition", and not a "controversy", and said the competition made both of them better.

Yet, after all those months and scrimmages and games, he couldn't commit to the guy he had decided was the better QB? C'mon. Lots of quarterbacks have bad, even horrendous quarters; I've never seen one pulled that early in the first game. Yes, Frye's play was execrable..but it wasn't that different from what we all (and especially Romeo) should have come to expect. Spending all that time (and coin flips) in choosing a starter, then yanking him that quickly was just bush league.

It undermines his players, and it undermines his coaching ability. If he keeps up these shenanagins, his players will lose respect for him (if they haven't already).When you have 2 crappy QBs, there's no sense in shuffling them in-and-out of the lineup.

 

[Q-Bert]

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.

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.

Jason,I guess I just don't agree with the bolded parts above. Not that I have followed this that closely but my understanding is that Crennel and Savage have been very clear that they don't want to start Brady Quinn because the feel it is in his and the teams best interests for him to sit and learn before taking over. I have not seen or heard one thing that even implies that they were trying to teach him a lesson. The truth is that the Browns have a brutal early season schedule and would be best served if Frye/Anderson gets their bodies/egos/confidence shattered than if Quinn was the one having to deal with it.

 

[Da Guru]

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.

Romeo does not seem like a decisive HC.They should just cut the BS, stop the charade and give Quinn the job.

 

[Jason Wood]

Today's unconfirmed news that the Browns are trying to trade Frye makes a ton of sense, at least (if it's true) Savage recognizes that Crennel's decision makes Frye impossible to put back on the field.

 

[Marvin88]

Today's unconfirmed news that the Browns are trying to trade Frye makes a ton of sense, at least (if it's true) Savage recognizes that Crennel's decision makes Frye impossible to put back on the field.

Yep, it went down. Off to Seattle goes Frye.

 

[pwtrash]

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?

as a Browns fan I say, "Please let this happen".

As a Cowboys fan, I say "I love Frye, I love Anderson, and with that O-Line, I love Quinn. But most of all, I really love Crennel!"

 

[Jedeye]

Details of trade?

 

[TommyGilmore]

Today's unconfirmed news that the Browns are trying to trade Frye makes a ton of sense, at least (if it's true) Savage recognizes that Crennel's decision makes Frye impossible to put back on the field.

So here's a question: how does the trade make Cleveland a better team?

 

[Godsbrother]

Today's unconfirmed news that the Browns are trying to trade Frye makes a ton of sense, at least (if it's true) Savage recognizes that Crennel's decision makes Frye impossible to put back on the field.

So here's a question: how does the trade make Cleveland a better team?

I doubt they got much more than a 7th round for Frye. The Browns haven't had all that much luck with their first round picks let alone their 7ths so obviously this is just a move to dump Frye.I guess it allows them to activate Dorsey -- I can't see how that makes them a better team though.

 

[Fallerjw]

Today's unconfirmed news that the Browns are trying to trade Frye makes a ton of sense, at least (if it's true) Savage recognizes that Crennel's decision makes Frye impossible to put back on the field.

So here's a question: how does the trade make Cleveland a better team?

The Browns would be 0 - 4 right now if Frye was starting. Instead, they are 2 - 2, and could very easily have been 3 - 1. That trade would have been good if the Browns got a piece of ABC gum for Charlie.