in

OBR News-o-rama

The charming, yet slightly nauseating, story of a suburban nerd's love of the Cleveland Browns. And other stuff.

April 2007 - Posts

  • Draft 2007: Leave Your Fear at the Door

    Since I created my first NFL website in 1996, the amount of information you can read about the the NFL draft has exploded into a million little pieces. The same is true regarding the words spewed daily about our Cleveland Browns.

    I read the newspaper columns, wander around the internet's myriad fan blogs, and then generally head to the forums to get a sense of what fans think the Browns should (and will) do in this year's draft. In the mornings and afternoons, the airwaves fill with fans and talkers discussing what will happen in fifteen minutes on April 28th.

    You could spend the whole day absorbing it. So many words, so many voices.

    So much fear.

    In my opinion, what the Browns must do on April 28th is obvious. It's laid out right in front of us.

    What interests me more right now is why so many people I read and respect simply don't get it. I read some columns in the local papers and just wonder what planet the writer is on. Even Terry Pluto, usually a voice of reason, seems to have gone Johnny One-Note on us, talking endlessly about offensive linemen.

    "Safe pick", the voices say, "Make the safe pick".


    Don't Think: Twitch.

    Before we talk about fear, though, we need to talk about instinct.

    Namely, we need to talk about the quarterbacking instincts of third-year Browns quarterback Charlie Frye. The Akron product has been given a year in the starting role. A little more than that, when it comes down to it.

    It's not working.

    There is a lot of talk this time of year about mechanics, footwork, "decision-making", arm strength, height, leadership ability, and 40 times.

    All of those attributes are valuable, but none of them makes the slightest bit of difference unless the quarterback is capable of reacting instinctively to the patterns he can see among 22 men running independently on a football field. Because of the speed of defensive players, the available time to react is less than three seconds. Often, the quarterback has to just drop and throw to a spot, and has only a split second to decide if that's a bad idea.

    Stop right now. Look at the second hand on your watch. Imagine yourself running, dropping back, seeing twenty people running in chaotic patterns. You've got two ticks of the clock.

    Now look at the second hand again, and let it click four times, four seconds.

    That's the difference between college ball and pro ball, and it's a huge one that some players can't overcome.

    Everything I've seen from Charlie Frye, the games I've reviewed, and the tales about playing NFL quarterback that I've read, leads me to believe that the young man from Akron won't be able to bridge that gap.

    If you want to wait another year and cross your fingers that the game will "slow down" for Charlie and let him snap out decisions that quickly, go ahead. Count me out.

    As much as I want Frye to succeed, as much as I admire his courage and work ethic, and love his back story, Charlie Frye is not going to be even a passable NFL starter. Whether because of his experiences in Akron, or just the way his brain is wired, I don't see in Charlie the ability to recognize what's happening and react as quickly as he needs to be successful at this level.

    You can either operate at NFL hyper-speed, or you can't. I'm sad to say that I don't think Charlie can.


    The Language of Fear

    There are two NFL-quality quarterbacks available in this year's draft.Jamarcus Russell and Brady Quinn have both shown that they have those critical attributes of vision and reaction time Charlie Frye seems to lack.  

    There are a couple more who have the potential to be NFL quality quarterbacks, maybe, perhaps, but they are just rolls of the dice. Like Charlie.

    A team's offense revolves around it's quarterback - not the running back, not a wide receiver, not the center. As much as left tackles are prized, they're prized mainly because they protect the quarterback's blind side.

    Without a quarterback capable of playing at a high level - or at the very least capable of a modicum of success that avoids mistakes - you might as well keep the offense on the sidelines.

    Here's an example for fans who want to draft Adrian Peterson. A little known stat we talked about on the OBR radio program last season is that Reuben Droughns effectiveness dropped a walloping 1.5 yards per carry when Charlie Frye took over at quarterback, compared to Trent Dilfer. That's 30 yards a game, or more.

    Without the need to respect quick passes or the worry about a quarterback who could look off defenders, Cleveland opponents were able to load up at the line of scrimmage and stop the run. While Adrian Peterson is a tremendous athlete, I expect that an effective passing game alone would help the Browns running attack almost as much.

    Deep in their hearts, most of the local media and fans know the team needs to change quarterbacks at some point at some point in the next year, but they don't say it. Even if we were to draft Joe Thomas or Adrian Peterson, the team will still need a new quarterback. There's no escaping it.

    The question is, why are so many fans and pundits falling back on old bromides and asking for safer, more predictable, choices like a left tackle or a running back?

    The answer is simple: fear.

    Few of those who write about draft openly espouse picking a QB because they fear the pick will be a failure. To understand this, we only need to look at our past.


    It Is Time to Shrug Off the Past

    Everyone who follows the Browns frets about choosing a quarterback because of the failures of Tim Couch, Charlie Frye, Kelly Holcomb, and Mike Phipps. Browns fans have been burned too many times by quarterbacks who failed to live up to expectations, so there's a natural tendency to avoid making the "same mistake".

    Statistics about the failure rate of QB selections are brought up again and again, colossal failures like Akili Smith and Ryan Leaf are used as evidence to avoid taking a QB because of hunches that Russell or Quinn may approximate either.

    "I think that Brady Quinn is overrated". "Jamarcus Russell might have discipline problems". "He didn't play well in big games". "Joe Thomas is the safe choice". "We should always build in the trenches".

    These are soft measures, hunches, guesses. It's the language of worry, looking for reasons to rationalize what is considered a safer pick.

    To hell with that.

    If the Browns are to overcome mediocrity, we must first overcome fear, and overcome the sense of inevitable failure.

    It's time to pick a player who, if successful, can put the offense on his back and carry it. In the NFL, that player is the quarterback and only rarely someone else.

    Did LaDanian Tomlinson win before the Chargers had a solid quarterback? Did Orlando Pace take his team to the Super Bowl before the Rams found Kurt Warner? Did the Ratbirds, who had practically everything else - a great left tackle (Jon Ogden), running back (Jamal Lewis) and the admittedly excellent Ratbird thug defense - win anything before (or after) they had a quarterback who could at least play at a pro level? No, no, and no.

    The time has come to shrug off the scars of the last decade, and not let fear beat us before the game is even played.

    Don't settle for safety. Aim for the dream.

    On April 28th, the Browns need to make a fearless choice, and the only one which will firmly state that the team is aiming for nothing less than the Super Bowl.

    When our turn comes up in nine days, the Cleveland Browns need to select either Jamarcus Russell or Brady Quinn.

    We need to be able to talk about Super Bowls again. It's our turn.

  • Another Year for Charlie? WATCH THIS!

    One of our denizens of the Pure Football forum, let's call him "L" to keep the NFL goons off his back, did an amazing job of analyzing the performances of Colts QB Peyton Manning and Cowboys QB Tony Romo, and then comparing them to Browns QB Charlie Frye.

    In this case, seeing is truly believing, as "L" uses game clips to show the significant difference in delivery times between Manning, Romo, and Frye, and how Charlie's late delivery and poor mechanics often resulted in blown plays or turnovers.

    In the NFL a half or three-quarters of a second can make all the difference between success and failure. Watch these clips and you will be convinced that a change at quarterback is essential for the Browns to move forward.

    You may agree - or may watch and still disagree - but you won't see any better analysis of how the Browns QB play compares to others around the NFL, anywhere:

    AS THREATENED, WE'VE REMOVED THE LINKS DUE TO BANDWIDTH RESTRICTIONS... HOPE YOU ENJOYED THEM!!

    The second set of clips is from the Notre Dame - USC contest, and shows Brady Quinn working the Irish offense against a far superior PAC-10 team. Individuals who think that Quinn wouldn't make an improvement in the Browns offense if drafted at #3 may re-think their positions after watching this. Great stuff.

    Excellent stuff, which we'll keep linked only for a brief time. Next year, "L" will work with the OBR staff to provide post-game analysis using the array of photographs at our disposal, particularly after home games.

    Watch, digest, respond.

  • Socialists R' Us

    I blame you, Dennis Kucinich, for making me back out on my word.

    I vowed a few years ago never to talk politics on the OBR, primarily because fans venture to the site to do something fun: tracking football, and not listen to my idiotic views. Or, rather, my views which could qualifiy as "idiotic" if they were well-informed, which they're generally not.

    Unfortunately, Dennis Kucinich has been quoted recently talking about something close to my heart, which is disturbingly close to something I wished for since 1995.

    You see, back then, this guy named Art Modell, who didn't have the business skills make a profit with a lemonade stand if he was the only source of liquid refreshment for the entire state of Nevada, managed to escape his own ineptitude by jamming a knife into the back of Cleveland Browns fans and taking a bribe from Baltimore, Maryland, to move his football team. I didn't like this, and neither did a lot of my friends, and it ultimately led to the ridiculous vocation I find myself in now.

    So, when complaining about what the NFL could do to fans, it only made sense that we would talk about potential solutions, since "self-control" seemed beyond a league which includes guys like Modell, Bud Adams, and other sleazoids in their midst.

    One notion that was advanced frequently was that of allowing localities to get partial or full ownership of franchises, much like the Packers were left to the city of Green Bay. The NFL, of course, sort of likes being about to move around and blackmail communities, so they don't allow that anymore. They have made their rules demand a large percentage of a team to be owned by a single individual, which makes fan-ownership a pipe dream.

    The issue, of course, has largely been forgotten in the decade that has passed since Art Modell "had no choice".

    Except, oddly enough, by lefty politico Dennis Kucinich, who isn't exactly a guy who would be considered a kindred spirit, or a likely benefactor, even at my current income level.

    But Dennis is singing my song. Sorta.

    So says a recent article in The Daily World, which revealed that the man who brought us municipal bankruptcy also would like to bring us what he calls "socialized football:.

    When asked how he felt about cities facing demands from sports franchises to build new stadiums, he told a story about his experience with the Cleveland Browns and his proposal for “socialized football.”

    “Instead of spending $500 million to build a stadium where the Browns would play maybe nine days a year, ... Cleveland would just use the money to buy the team altogether,” he suggested.

    It's easy for me to be flippant about this. "Now, from the people who brought you the Cleveland Public School System... here are your Cleveland Browns!".

    Heck, in this town, I'd expect the team's roster would be dictated more by demographic quotas and insider bartering of favors than talent. "Let the councilman's nephew play quarterback, Coach, and we'll make sure that no offensive linemen meet with... unneccessary... parking violations... know what I mean?"

    Still, even if Kucinich don't see eye-to-eye on things like the unilateral disarmament he discusses in the article, there's something to be said about forcing football franchises to be more responsible to to the communities they serve.

    To me, there seem to be three options to change the power balance between cities and NFL franchises:

    1. Forcing changes to franchise ownership rules (ala Kucinich)
    2. Other forms of governmental oversight of a "tolerated monopoly"
    3. Competition in the form of other professional football leagues
    4. Self-discipline by NFL owners (of the type which failed miserably in 1995)

    Anyone out there have any thoughts, or has eleven-and-a-half years made the issue vanish in your mind?

2007 MediaTNG, LLC
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems