Dilfer traded

[consigliere]

Okay, the deal is done.....Dilfer to the 49ers for Ken Dorsey and an undisclosed pick.

Now, I honestly can care less about losing Dilfer. No biggie there.

But, I have a hard time accepting Frye as the starting QB, or not at least having a capable backup behind him to turn to or create competition in camp. They still may sign one of the vet QBs available on the FA market, which I implore.

I just hope no one (fans or the FO) is fine with Frye and Dorsey as our 1-2 QBs. That would be absurd.

[yargs7]

I beleive it was a 2007 7th rounder. They must have something in the works to get a veteran. I can't imagine any NFL team without a veteran backup.

[pup]

Why all the concern over Charlie Frye? While he may not be Joe Montana, I thought he did a pretty good job with the offense, especially for a rookie.

[consigliere]

Why all the concern? He played well in spots last year, but overall I saw a very average QB. Nothing that merits him being a starting QB anytime soon. If he were from San Jose St or any other mid-major conference out West, people would be pleading for a true QB. I get he is a local boy from Akron and everyone likes that shit and wants him to succeed.....but to let that bias permeate into letting 2006 basically be an audition year for Frye is absurd.

I like Frye.....but I'd feel much more comfortable if they turn around and sign a proven vet for at least this year. I think they'll do that. I'm fine with letting Frye start the season as QB, but by God we better have a backup plan. And, he needs competition in camp to push him.

THis is the NFL, where you are always one good offseason away from the playoffs, no matter how bad you were the year before. I think a lot of people think we have had a solid or good offseason.

[pup]

He played well in spots last year, but overall I saw a very average QB.

He was a rookie QB, playing with just about zero offensive weapons, so to still look average is not too bad. Dilfer is a stiff. He has done nothing but cry since about game 3 last year.

Look, I am not one to follow blindly whatever coaches and GM's decide to do. They have had a year to grade out both of the options and obviously feel Frye is the better QB for this team. Now they will be able to use Dilfer's cash to sign another veteran that will understand and accept his role.

Maybe Frye is just an average QB. But isn't that all Trent Dilfer is? And isn't that what whoever they bring in will be? What is the difference? I don't think they are planning on going with Dorsey as the #2.

[consigliere]

I have no problem dumping Dilfer, or going with Frye in a competition for the #1 QB spot.

My concern is more directed to the QB situation as a whole. It might be the weakest position on the offense, perhaps the team. We finally have a good line and some weapons, and now we lack a QB. I'd feel much better had we gone out and signed a Drew Brees or someone like that.....

Frye may turnout okay. And, even though he was a rookie and lacked weapons last year, I can't dismiss the fact he still looked shaky. His last 5 games and performance last year were very similar to he who shall not be named that started as a rookie in 99.

And, I have seen people on other boards give indications that they may indeed go with Frye #1 and Dorsey #2. That would be insane. If they do in fact do that, I'll be furious.

[pup]

Once they signed Brees, they should have also gotten Steve Hutchinson to play guard, TO at WR, and traded their entire draft to move up fo AJ Hawk as well.

Sure it would have been great to sign Brees, but not at the expense of anything else they did. Notice the Saints were forced to let Bentley walk to bring in Brees. Would you rather Brees/Faine over Bentley/Frye? I wouldn't. There is only so much cash to spend. With the number of holes they filled in, it is a little greedy to think they could have done more.

[consigliere]

So, because of cap space, the Browns should just go into this season with a big void or question mark at one of the most important (most watched) positions on the team? As a season ticket holder, that doesn't sit well with me.

Cut some dead weight from the roster then, or don't sign average players like Kevin Schaffer or over-the-hill guys in Ted Washington. And, don't they still have some decent cap space left? With signing bonuses, all you really need is like $1.5-$2M in cap space to sign a Brees since the actual salary is backloaded and they make league min the first year or two in a deal (with the signing bonus divided over the years).

Yes, when it comes to baseball I am generally much more patient with building a team....you can't tear down and rebuild a team overnight like you can in the NFL. I gave this team 2005 as a year to rebuild and evaulate what they have. I expect to win in Year 2 (2006) of this new regime.

And, I think they are heading in the right direction to challenge for a playoff spot....maybe not seriously till 2007....but that still does not excuse the risk they may be taking having Frye and some other schmuck as our QB in 2006. Hell, if anything, trade up from #12 to #10 and nab Leinart. I'd have likes that 100 times better than picking up Wimbley.

[pup]

So, because of cap space, the Browns should just go into this season with a big void or question mark at one of the most important (most watched) positions on the team? As a season ticket holder, that doesn't sit well with me.

Yes, because of cap space, there is only so much that can be done in a given off-season.

There is a huge difference between most important and most watched positions. No QB that they brought in would be that much better than Frye. Drew Brees is good, but not a difference maker. LT and Gates are the difference makers in that offense and make Brees look that much better.

Cut some dead weight from the roster then, or don't sign average players like Kevin Schaffer or over-the-hill guys in Ted Washington.

And what would you propose they did at the DT and LT positions if they signed Brees?

[consigliere]

Brees' cap number in 2006 is $3.3M....I don't see how that is hard to squeeze in there.

If Frye gets a pass because he had no weapons last year.....but then Brees gets cast aside because he had weapons.....then which is it? Bottom line, Brees has performed well for 2 years and is a pretty good fit for this offense.....Frye is unproven and we have no idea what we are going to get with him.

Brees is just an example. I wasn't clamoring to go sign him at the time......but my point is, we NEED a QB! I was about to rant on our lack of urgency to get a QB, then this deal of Dilfer came about so here I go. If not Brees, how about trading up for the sliding Leinart? Or, looking at some other in a trade? (is Aaron Brooks signed....not that I want him, but what did NO do with him?)

[pup]

If Frye gets a pass because he had no weapons last year.....but then Brees gets cast aside because he had weapons.....then which is it?

It is actually the same argument. Options with the football is what makes most QB's in this league succesful. The biggest skill for a QB is being able to read a defense and the more dangerous options you have to go forces defenses to show their hands, making it easier on the QB.

Frye has to perform. If he doesn't, then it does not matter who the #2 is the Browns will struggle. Even if Dilfer, which was really the best case scenario for a team with so many holes to fill through FA, is the backup we are screwed. He stinks.

And please, never list Aaron Brooks (who signed with Oakland) as the basis for any argument you are making, unless you are arguing for what an NFL QB is not.

Brees' cap number in 2006 is $3.3M....I don't see how that is hard to squeeze in there.

It's not, if you want Stewart playing ILB and Fisk at NG.

[consigliere]

It's not, if you want Stewart playing ILB and Fisk at NG.

Not true. Why does it have to be one of the other? We still have between $6-8M in cap space reportedly.

[pup]

They have to sign the rookies, no?

[consigliere]

$3-4M is set aside for the rooks.....we still have around $3-5M to spend on FAs.

[pup]

Then the only resonible explanation I can offer is they feel confident in what Frye can do. They could have been concerned with the status of Brees' shoulder also.

[consigliere]

In any case, I am disappointed we were not a little more aggressive this offseason in getting a QB. I might have done whatever possible to trade up to #9 in front of Zona to get Lienart.

Going into the season with Frye is a hge risk. It could pay off.....but by God, if he fails, then this season is a waste, and then next offseason we are scrambling again to try and find a QB which could result in 2008 as well going down the shitter.

This is EXACTLY why I wanted to see Frye in more games last year. Had he started 9-10 games, it would be a lot more comforting one way of the other to get a good read on him than him playing in the last 5 games in meaningless games with a lot of people of people out hurt. The "evaluation" period should have ended once the final snap of 2005 took place. 2006 should be about winning football games and getting into the playoffs.

[pup]

I don't think they are looking at 2006 as an evaluation time. I think they b elieve Frye can perform as a starting quarterback in the NFL and are fully prepared to go into the year with him.

[pup]

Anyone else think the Browns should start to look into Steve McNair? If for no other reason would it not drive the price the Ravens will have to pay higher, it seems to be worthwhile.