Peter King mentions Charlie Frye
Well, here's my take on this...I've never seen Charlie Frye play nor have I looked at his stats...therefore I won't make any judgments. I will say that he could be considered overrated just for the fact that he is from Akron, one of the bottom dwellers in the MAC as well as the nation. Now about Omar Jacobs, I won't say much about him either, because being in the band, I would try to watch, but most of the time I would be keeping an eye on Dr. Hayward or one of the drum majors. I think we will be able to see how well Omar truly is in the first month or so of Football against teams like Wisconsin and Boise State. There we will be able to see how well he has developed through the off-season, and after a full season including a bowl game. I feel that we cannot judge Omar against other players such as Charlie Frye because Frye has had a few years under his belt vs. Omar's one.
~Roll Along You BG Warriors!~
-
Schadenfreude
- Professional tractor puller
- Posts: 6983
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:39 am
- Location: Colorado
M.A.C.? Mid-Am?Dayons_Den wrote:I think the world of Omar and think there is a later-in-December bowl game he can take us to, but am also a realist and saw the talent at QB in the M.A.C. last season. You could, to some very valid and good points, argue that one of three or four qb's last season were the best of the bunch in the Mid-Am.
Dude, that's old school. Love it!
-
Schadenfreude
- Professional tractor puller
- Posts: 6983
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:39 am
- Location: Colorado
Well, I think we've gotten way off track by comparing Frye to Omar. I believe that was originally brought up only to support the point of view that Frye is for real.
Also, Akron was playing for the East title in their last game of the season. I wouldn't say that they were a bottom dweller. At least not last year. I believe Frye was the difference, but we will find out this season.
I know what you mean though... in the long run they don't stand out as a regular power house.
Also, Akron was playing for the East title in their last game of the season. I wouldn't say that they were a bottom dweller. At least not last year. I believe Frye was the difference, but we will find out this season.
I know what you mean though... in the long run they don't stand out as a regular power house.
-
MiamiBando
- Peregrine
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:50 am
Saw Mel Kiper's QB preview on SportsCenter. He has Frye going in the second round to Green Bay. But he also has the Browns picking Alex Smith in the first round. I'll eat a bug if the Browns pick a QB at #3. They need help so many places, I would rather see them pick a QB in round 2 or 3 and get an athlete, ala Braylon Edwards, at #3.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
- Ernest Hemingway
-
Flipper
- The Global Village Idiot
- Posts: 18396
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:01 am
- Location: Ida Twp, MI
Edwards seems risky to me. He's got all the tools, but consistency seems like an issue. Then again, Michigan's QB's weren't exactly world beaters when he was there.
If Alex Smith should somehow drop to 10th, the Lions will take him and dump Joey Harrington. There's some talk in Detroit that Matt Millen is looking to move up a few spots. Whoo hoo...we get to see Jeff Garcia start next year!
I like Charlie Frye. I was impressed the first time I sw him play against Ohio State and I've been sold on him since. I wouldn't mind if Detroit were to trade down a few spots and get him near the end of the first round
If Alex Smith should somehow drop to 10th, the Lions will take him and dump Joey Harrington. There's some talk in Detroit that Matt Millen is looking to move up a few spots. Whoo hoo...we get to see Jeff Garcia start next year!
I like Charlie Frye. I was impressed the first time I sw him play against Ohio State and I've been sold on him since. I wouldn't mind if Detroit were to trade down a few spots and get him near the end of the first round
To totally threadjack this thread, I'll bite.Warthog wrote:Saw Mel Kiper's QB preview on SportsCenter. He has Frye going in the second round to Green Bay. But he also has the Browns picking Alex Smith in the first round. I'll eat a bug if the Browns pick a QB at #3. They need help so many places, I would rather see them pick a QB in round 2 or 3 and get an athlete, ala Braylon Edwards, at #3.
If the Browns believe that the QB that falls to them at #3 (be it Smith or Rodgers) can be a franchise guy they MUST make that pick. I hate it. I hate taking QBs high, because you pay them so much money and they don't make an immediate impact. However, its the one part of the draft where you actually DO have a reasonable chance of getting a franchise QB.
I'm not sold 100% on Edwards because he dropped so many easy balls in his career. He made the spectacular play, yes, but dropped a lot of key passes, including a 4th down pass that could've kept them in the OSU game this past season. Fact is, I'm not 100% sold on ANY player in this draft.
As for waiting for a QB, I really like Frye, I think he can play in the NFL, and he should be available in Round 2. However, taking a QB beyond the first round is a VERY iffy proposition. I read an analysis not too long ago about 2nd Round QBs. There are something like 20 of them on NFL rosters right now. Of those 20 Brees, Favre, and Plummer are the only ones starting. When you look further down in the draft you have Brooks, Brady, and Bulger starting, but that's about it. However, in general taking a QB somewhere other than the first round rarely will result in a future starter, let alone an above average one. Everyone likes to point out Brady, but for every Brady there are 30 Spergeon Wynn's taken in the 6th round.
Another thing to look at is "bust-rate". The Browns are so bad they can not afford another top 3 pick BUST. If you look at the history of the draft (especially recent history) the QB bust rate is about 50% for first rounders. The bust rate for WRs & DL is MUCH higher. In fact, top 10 WRs, it seems, hardly ever pan out. Of course past statistics have no bearing on the future, but there is definitely a trend that looks as though WR & DL are the two most dangerous top 10 picks. FWIW, OL is the safest by far, but there really aren't any good OL in this draft
In short, I have no clue what the Browns are going to do. I wouldn't complain with either of the two QBs, but I'm not necessarily hoping for them either. I prefer Mike Williams to Braylon, and I'm wary of Johnson because I don't think he fits a 3-4. I prefer either Auburn RB to Benson, but all 3 are capable runners, although I don't think the Browns will go that way having acquired Droughns.
Just remember there are 2 rules to drafting if you want to become a great team:
1) Always take Best Player Available. Even if it appears it is not your biggest need you're best off taking the best player. (The Vikes didn't need a WR when they took Randy, Baltimore didn't need a safety when they took Reed, etc.)
2) If you do not have a franchise QB, and you believe there is one available at your draft slot, you ALWAYS take the QB. (This is the one that could affect us this year, if Savage thinks the QB is a future star).
To continue the threadjacking...
According to my research (an MY analysis), from 1982 to 2002 there were 47 QB's taken in the first round. Of these, 14 were legitimate stars (Elway, Marino, Aikman, Manning, McNabb, Vick for example), 7 did ok (McMahon, Everett, Testeverde, Dilfer, Pennington, etc) and 26 were flat out busts. Some of the busts include Art Schlichter, Ken O'Brien, Tim Rosenbach, Dan McGwire, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Druckenmiller, Leaf, Couch, Harrington.
My point, you have better than a 50% chance of a first round QB being a bust than of him having at least a serviceable career, much less of being a star. The '83 draft was an exception. The first round included Elway, Blackledge, Kelly, Eason, and Marino, three stars, two busts. But that was the exception. More recent drafts prove the point better. In '99 it was Couch, McNabb, Akili, Smith, Culpepper, and Cade McKown. Two of those barely lasted two years in the league and the third made it for about four simply because the Browns had no other choice.
Given that, I would bet that either Rogers or Smith will be a star in the NFL and the other will be selling insurance inside of three years.
As for the Browns, my point is that they have lots of holes to fill. They cannot afford to make a pick at #3 that only has about a 30% chance of being the franchise QB they are looking for. I think a DB or LB has a much better chance of being successful, and thusly I would pick the best player from that group of positions.
According to my research (an MY analysis), from 1982 to 2002 there were 47 QB's taken in the first round. Of these, 14 were legitimate stars (Elway, Marino, Aikman, Manning, McNabb, Vick for example), 7 did ok (McMahon, Everett, Testeverde, Dilfer, Pennington, etc) and 26 were flat out busts. Some of the busts include Art Schlichter, Ken O'Brien, Tim Rosenbach, Dan McGwire, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Druckenmiller, Leaf, Couch, Harrington.
My point, you have better than a 50% chance of a first round QB being a bust than of him having at least a serviceable career, much less of being a star. The '83 draft was an exception. The first round included Elway, Blackledge, Kelly, Eason, and Marino, three stars, two busts. But that was the exception. More recent drafts prove the point better. In '99 it was Couch, McNabb, Akili, Smith, Culpepper, and Cade McKown. Two of those barely lasted two years in the league and the third made it for about four simply because the Browns had no other choice.
Given that, I would bet that either Rogers or Smith will be a star in the NFL and the other will be selling insurance inside of three years.
As for the Browns, my point is that they have lots of holes to fill. They cannot afford to make a pick at #3 that only has about a 30% chance of being the franchise QB they are looking for. I think a DB or LB has a much better chance of being successful, and thusly I would pick the best player from that group of positions.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
- Ernest Hemingway
Well I think if you're going to put it into purely mathematical based on positions you can look at lots of other positions. I'm not old enough to go all the way back to 1982, because quite honestly there are a lot of those players that I have never heard of one way or the other. Going back to 1995 (10 years) however I see these numbers:
WRs: 41 Drafted, 11 of them are surefire BUSTS. The jury is still out on a LOT of these guys, as 10 of them were drafted in the past 2 years. I would put only 4 of them down as stars (Moss, Holt, Harrison, and Moulds). WR is surely not safe.
OLB: 17 Drafted, only Claiborne would be a sure bust (WTG Detroit!). 6 of them are big time players that I'd consider stars. It should be noted that a couple years there was not a single one drafted & only 3 of them were top 5 picks. Even Savage himself states that you don't usually use that high of a pick on a LB.
MLB/ILB: 11 Drafted, 2 were busts. Again a pretty high rate of stars here with 5 looking like rocks in the middle. However, only 2 were top 10 picks.
CB: 38 Drafted. 9 of those in the past 2 years, tough to call but a few of them are already looking like busts from the '03 draft. Of the other 29 I would say about 10-14 are true busts. This appears to be a VERY difficult position to predict, with a very high bust rate. Even worse of those only 4 are true stars (Law, McAlister, Bailey, and Woodson).
QB (for true comparisons by year): 23 drafted. 8 in the past 2 years and WAY too early to call. Of the remaining 15 I would say 5 are busts (with Ramsey & Harrington teetering on that ledge). But 5 are stars as well.
When you look at these numbers it makes me believe that most positions are very prone to busts. The safest positions appear to be LBs, but there is a real stigma with taking LBs high, and FWIW further analysis would show that you're no more likely to get a star RB in the early first round than in the later first round. It seems to me that there really ARE no safe picks in the draft.
Also, note that this is math. Math is great, but not the best way to predict future successes of draft picks. Certainly the ability to evaluate that talent and then coach it plays a larger role than where a player was drafted who plays whichever position. I do know that looking further into the draft QB is the position where you see the fewest legit NFL starters outside of the first round, whereas every other position is loaded with them.
I'm no more convinced about what I want the Browns to do in this draft after looking into this than I was before. I'm very subdued about my wishes, mainly because I'm lukewarm on basically everyone. There is not one player in this draft who would've gone in the top 10 picks last year, IMO. At the same time there isn't one player who I really think is going to be a bust and is majorly overrated either. I still don't think its a fundamental mistake to take a QB high, because that's the only way (barring immense luck) that you're going to get a star QB. I also think hitting on a QB pick is the easiest way to turn your team around. The downside is missing on a QB pick will cripple your franchise for 3-4 seasons before you can get his contract off your cap, etc.
This is why I'm here and not the one to actaully make these decisions!
WRs: 41 Drafted, 11 of them are surefire BUSTS. The jury is still out on a LOT of these guys, as 10 of them were drafted in the past 2 years. I would put only 4 of them down as stars (Moss, Holt, Harrison, and Moulds). WR is surely not safe.
OLB: 17 Drafted, only Claiborne would be a sure bust (WTG Detroit!). 6 of them are big time players that I'd consider stars. It should be noted that a couple years there was not a single one drafted & only 3 of them were top 5 picks. Even Savage himself states that you don't usually use that high of a pick on a LB.
MLB/ILB: 11 Drafted, 2 were busts. Again a pretty high rate of stars here with 5 looking like rocks in the middle. However, only 2 were top 10 picks.
CB: 38 Drafted. 9 of those in the past 2 years, tough to call but a few of them are already looking like busts from the '03 draft. Of the other 29 I would say about 10-14 are true busts. This appears to be a VERY difficult position to predict, with a very high bust rate. Even worse of those only 4 are true stars (Law, McAlister, Bailey, and Woodson).
QB (for true comparisons by year): 23 drafted. 8 in the past 2 years and WAY too early to call. Of the remaining 15 I would say 5 are busts (with Ramsey & Harrington teetering on that ledge). But 5 are stars as well.
When you look at these numbers it makes me believe that most positions are very prone to busts. The safest positions appear to be LBs, but there is a real stigma with taking LBs high, and FWIW further analysis would show that you're no more likely to get a star RB in the early first round than in the later first round. It seems to me that there really ARE no safe picks in the draft.
Also, note that this is math. Math is great, but not the best way to predict future successes of draft picks. Certainly the ability to evaluate that talent and then coach it plays a larger role than where a player was drafted who plays whichever position. I do know that looking further into the draft QB is the position where you see the fewest legit NFL starters outside of the first round, whereas every other position is loaded with them.
I'm no more convinced about what I want the Browns to do in this draft after looking into this than I was before. I'm very subdued about my wishes, mainly because I'm lukewarm on basically everyone. There is not one player in this draft who would've gone in the top 10 picks last year, IMO. At the same time there isn't one player who I really think is going to be a bust and is majorly overrated either. I still don't think its a fundamental mistake to take a QB high, because that's the only way (barring immense luck) that you're going to get a star QB. I also think hitting on a QB pick is the easiest way to turn your team around. The downside is missing on a QB pick will cripple your franchise for 3-4 seasons before you can get his contract off your cap, etc.
This is why I'm here and not the one to actaully make these decisions!
Good thing I didn't go for the really obscure guys or hammb would think I was making it up.1987alum wrote:Feeling ... so ... very ... old ...hammb wrote:I'm not old enough to go all the way back to 1982, because quite honestly there are a lot of those players that I have never heard of one way or the other.
FWIW, I think there is also too much of a stigma that says you can't pick certain positions at the top of the draft. Yes, I believe in the "take the best player available" philosophy. But when you are picking at the top of the draft, it seems like teams limit themselves to "take the best QB/RB/WR available". It seems to me when you read the report cards after the drafts, the teams that did well are usually in the middle of the draft and had guys fall to them because other teams were taking the best guy at a need position instead the just the best guy overall.
That said, I would love to see the Browns trade down, but it doesn;t look like anyone is interested in trading up. I am hoping both SF and Miami take QBs and then somebody below is really wanting a particular Rb and will move in to the three slot. Doubt it, but that is would I would like to see.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
- Ernest Hemingway
I do agree with your position stigma Warthog. I always wondered why teams will pass on potential superstars at Safety, LB, or OG to draft a marginal talent at another position. I think that is one reason why the LBs who do get drafted in the first round show such a large % of hits, and other positions show so many misses.
That said, I'm not sure how it effects this draft. There is no surefire star at OG, and even at safety really. The top LB is clearly Johnson who could be a star, but I just don't think he really fits into a 3-4 scheme; it plays to his weaknesses, not his strengths.
I think you may be surprised at teams that might want to trade up, actually. There are only 2 legit WRs in this draft and there are a number of teams that want/need them. If anything I think you'll see people wanting to trade up to grab Braylon or Williams. I think best case scenario for the Browns is that it goes Edwards to SF & then Brown to MIA. That leaves both QBs on the board & only one WR. Surely somebody will want to get that shot at Williams, and we can safely trade down knowing that we'll have a QB there if that's what we really covet.
That's the thing about taking Smith #3...I really could see him dropping down to 7 or 8, if he makes it past us, because none of the teams behind us really need a QB. If we can trade down and still get him that'd be a winning move.
Another guy that I've really liked what I've seen of him is Shawne Merriman from Maryland. That kid is the prototype 3-4 OLB. He seems like a reach at #3, but if we could trade down and still get him, I'd be thrilled with that scenario as well.
No matter what happens I think we'll get a guy that could be potentially great at some position. Unfortunately I don't think there is one single player who truly looks like a superstar prospect
That said, I'm not sure how it effects this draft. There is no surefire star at OG, and even at safety really. The top LB is clearly Johnson who could be a star, but I just don't think he really fits into a 3-4 scheme; it plays to his weaknesses, not his strengths.
I think you may be surprised at teams that might want to trade up, actually. There are only 2 legit WRs in this draft and there are a number of teams that want/need them. If anything I think you'll see people wanting to trade up to grab Braylon or Williams. I think best case scenario for the Browns is that it goes Edwards to SF & then Brown to MIA. That leaves both QBs on the board & only one WR. Surely somebody will want to get that shot at Williams, and we can safely trade down knowing that we'll have a QB there if that's what we really covet.
That's the thing about taking Smith #3...I really could see him dropping down to 7 or 8, if he makes it past us, because none of the teams behind us really need a QB. If we can trade down and still get him that'd be a winning move.
Another guy that I've really liked what I've seen of him is Shawne Merriman from Maryland. That kid is the prototype 3-4 OLB. He seems like a reach at #3, but if we could trade down and still get him, I'd be thrilled with that scenario as well.
No matter what happens I think we'll get a guy that could be potentially great at some position. Unfortunately I don't think there is one single player who truly looks like a superstar prospect
