Wedge is gonna getcha. Wedge is gonna getcha all!

The regular season debuts tonight, and my Saints are being televised. They're gonna take down them there Colts. Oh Yeah!!

You know the NFL season is here, because Bill Simmons is joining in with his innumerable pop culture references (he even throws in a 'Heroes' nod for all you nerds out there). Here he ranks teams 32-12 and picks his "sleeper" team for the year, the choice of which I found rather amusing, interesting, and fairly legitemate. The Steelers have not yet been mentioned, apparently meaning they rank higher than 12th in Simmons's eyes. Huzzah!

Edit: Simmons apparently will not make his betting picks until tomorrow, but for tonight he's picking the Saints to beat the spread.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:Edit: Simmons apparently will not make his betting picks until tomorrow, but for tonight he's picking the Saints to beat the spread.

Fuck yeah!!

Ok, so the Saints looked good for an entire half. Time to start looking forward to next season!

Welcome to Cleveland.

Don't you mean, "Welcome to Cleveland . . . Bitch!"?

Because I'd swear over my uncle's pickled remains that you meant precisely this.

That was a pretty tough one last night: Indy's a tough place to play with that crowd noise in the dome. That combined with their edge rushers kill the other team's pass protection. And their defense might not be great, but it sure is fast. Last night they were pretty much hanging back there in their zone, and Brees didn't really have enough time to throw anywhere but way underneath. I was quite surprised how little he was able to throw down the field, like any farther than five yards down the field. The Saints seemed to incorporate this into their game plan, trying to draw Indy up to the line of scrimmage early with a lot of runs, screens and end-arounds or reverses. It got them a couple of first downs, but they couldn't sustain any drives. Once Indy finally got its offense going, then the Saints were in the position of having to pass, which is where Indy loves to put its opponents.

At least I still am able to look forward to the joy of the Steelers swatting the hapless Browns. It's unbelievable how cocky the Browns fans are at the sports boards I hang out at. They're absolutely incredible. Quite a few of them believe they'll WIN, for one thing. I mean, really, how many times do you have to beat a team in a row before their fans rightfully hang their heads in shame and accept whatever berating you deign to give them? They claims the "odds" are on their side, that the Steelers can't beat them "ad infinitum," that eventually they "have" to win, that they're "better" than they were last year. Their excuses are endless. The coming beatdown is really for their own good, but I doubt they'll be grateful. They'll probably just continue to foolishly "believe" in their team. They're hopeless, I tell you.

Thurston McQ wrote:Don't you mean, "Welcome to Cleveland . . . Bitch!"?

Because I'd swear over my uncle's pickled remains that you meant precisely this.

Maybe. I'm just saying that the emotions Q-sie expressed during the first quarter of the game last night is exactly the way we Clevelanders have to cope with just about all of our sports teams. We get really excited just before the season starts, then they do well for a brief period, then we frown, throw our hands up and say, "Wellp, there's always next year."

It happens in late April for the Indians.

It'll happen probably in the first three minutes of the Browns/Steelers game on Sunday (which I'm going too!)

This year, it took longer than usual for the Cavs. We still said it, though.







Bitch.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:Last night they were pretty much hanging back there in their zone, and Brees didn't really have enough time to throw anywhere but way underneath. I was quite surprised how little he was able to throw down the field, like any farther than five yards down the field. The Saints seemed to incorporate this into their game plan, trying to draw Indy up to the line of scrimmage early with a lot of runs, screens and end-arounds or reverses. It got them a couple of first downs, but they couldn't sustain any drives.

Brees is an excellent middle/long range passer. The Colts' defense did an outstanding job of shutting down his passing game (did you see how deep their secondary played?). They also gave no room for Bush to operate. Quite a shutout.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:It's unbelievable how cocky the Browns fans are at the sports boards I hang out at. They're absolutely incredible. Quite a few of them believe they'll WIN, for one thing. I mean, really, how many times do you have to beat a team in a row before their fans rightfully hang their heads in shame and accept whatever berating you deign to give them?

It never happened for the Red Sox fans and they, eventually, won. Granted, it took almost 90 years, but they did win.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:At least I still am able to look forward to the joy of the Steelers swatting the hapless Browns. It's unbelievable how cocky the Browns fans are at the sports boards I hang out at. They're absolutely incredible. Quite a few of them believe they'll WIN, for one thing. I mean, really, how many times do you have to beat a team in a row before their fans rightfully hang their heads in shame and accept whatever berating you deign to give them? They claims the "odds" are on their side, that the Steelers can't beat them "ad infinitum," that eventually they "have" to win, that they're "better" than they were last year. Their excuses are endless. The coming beatdown is really for their own good, but I doubt they'll be grateful. They'll probably just continue to foolishly "believe" in their team. They're hopeless, I tell you.

At first, I thought that was a roundabout way to attack me, being the resident Ambassador of Cleveland, here, and all... but then I realized, I really don't give a shit.

I think the Steelers are going to win, too. I almost want them to, because the Browns are starting Frye-for-Fries, which I think is retarded (I know, I don't know football that well, but I've seen the kid play and I honestly think I could throw less interceptions than he). I'm not saying they should start Quinn right away, but Frye should not be anywhere near that ball.

Either way, I just want to see a good game. It's my first regular season game at the stadium... it's my first Browns Steelers game. It's my first home opener... and my first tailgate. Lookin' forward to it.

I feel it necessary to mention that the Steelers destroyed the Browns 34-7 yesterday, with the lone dark spot being that the Browns scored. Inside linebacker James Farrior had a great game for the Steelers, and he dropped what should've been an easy interception early on the Browns' scoring drive, much to my dismay. The Steelers won the turnover battle 5-1 in this game, a very nice turnaround from last year where they were something like negative 8 in turnover differential, which itself was a big turnaround from their usual performance. I figured if they could right themselves in that category, they would be an automatic playoff team, and so far so good. Turnovers were the big story of the day, with almost all of the Steelers points coming off of turnovers, several of which gave the Steelers the ball on the Browns side of the field. The Steelers also had six sacks, most of which coming against starting quarterback Charlie Frye who is known for holding the ball too long, and who was benched in the second quarter for Derek Anderson who did a better job. Vickers, who scored Cleveland's touchdown, proceeded to do a fairly jiggy touchdown dance, which seemed particularly ridiculous considering the score, and Browns tight end Kellen Winslow (one of their few stars) had to tell him to shut it down because it was hardly the time to celebrate: kudos to him for caring more about winning than dancing. I think the Brady Quinn watch has officially begun in Cleveland: one quarterback ahead of him on the depth chart is down, one to go.

So who did you guys think were the most impressive teams in Week 1? I think the Colts and the Patriots win that honor. It was scary enough to think how dangerous Brady could be without any premier receivers, but now that he has Moss, it's even scarier. I actually didn't think Moss would have that much of an impact so early in the season, but he sure did.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:I feel it necessary to mention that the Steelers destroyed the Browns 34-7 yesterday...

I was there.

*shudder*

Actually, I called it. I missed the first TD and FG, but I think at least one of those happened in the first three minutes, which, if you'll remember, was about how long I said it would take for us Clevelanders to say "Well, there's always next year."

I swear to GOD, if Charlie Frye ever touches a football again, he and I are going to have words.

And by words, I mean fists. In the face (that was for you Jake...).

They aren't putting Quinn in yet. Crennel "doesn't want to do that to him." I'm a newbie to this stuff, but what is it going to "do to him?" It's not like it's a war and he's gonna see his buddies get blown apart in front of him. Put him in and see what he does. Quinn's not going to get any experience from watching Frye fuck it up for 10 minutes while he jots notes or whatever down on a clipboard.

Kudos, Jack. Your Steelers played well, given the circumstances. It must be nice to have an actual professional team in your city.

There's always next year...

(On a funny "fuck you, Frye-for-fries" note, a public service announcement came up on the big screen early in the game. It was something about proper behavior or something and everyone booed because it was Charlie Frye. That amused me.)

Ipsilon wrote:They aren't putting Quinn in yet. Crennel "doesn't want to do that to him." I'm a newbie to this stuff, but what is it going to "do to him?" It's not like it's a war and he's gonna see his buddies get blown apart in front of him. Put him in and see what he does. Quinn's not going to get any experience from watching Frye fuck it up for 10 minutes while he jots notes or whatever down on a clipboard.

Well, I'll try to break down the schools of thought on this for you, Ipsy. There are differing approaches on how to handle a new "franchise" quarterback. Some teams will sit the new guy for an entire year (Carson Palmer) or even two years (Steve McNair). Generally it is considered that quarterback is the most complicated position in sports and is the hardest for new players in the league to learn and adjust to, and players can actually learn a great deal in practice. For one thing they learn the offense, and NFL offenses have gotten more and more complicated over the years. Some offensive coordinators, such as Al Saunders of the Redskins, have playbooks 700 pages long. Teams spend a great deal of time during the week in team meetings, going over film play by play, position by position, noting every single decision a player makes and what decision the coaches would like them to make in that circumstance next time. And what's even harder is to learn how to respond in an actual game, where things rarely go like they are practiced: this is something that requires actual game experience to learn, though. But teams that sit a quarterback for a long period at the beginning of their career might do it for a couple of reasons: the quarterback is extremely raw and needs a great deal of time to become acclimated to an NFL system: that is not Brady Quinn, who played in college under an ex-NFL offensive coordinator who ran a pro-style offense. Brady is considered to be very NFL ready. Still, he has to learn the playbook, which may take time in part because he missed part of camp. Another reason teams sit quarterbacks is because the team sucks and putting the quarterback into the game may primarily teach a quarterback only how to be a hit by a 250-pound man running very fast. When the new Browns first came into existence they used their very first draft pick on quarterback Tim Couch out of Kentucky. Couch was raw, and was on an abysmal expansion team. People were impatient, he was rushed into the line-up too early (he probably should have sat at least a year), and he ended up blowing out his arm, an injury from which he still has not recovered. This experience is still very fresh in the minds of the Browns organization, and they do not wish to repeat it.

Now, other methods for high-profile rookie quarterbacks are to play them from the very first game and let them learn on the job (this is more rare), and probably the most favored method is to let them sit a third or half a season, learning on the sideline and maybe in garbage time, and then to let them play out a shortened season as the starter. This spares them somewhat from the long, grueling, punishing NFL season which often leaves rookies in somewhat of a bad state toward the end of the year, but lets the QB experience playing in the NFL, which probably means quite a bit of frustration their first year, but maybe also some successes. This gives the QB a decent foundation of experience on which to build in the offseason, and they go into their second season with a pretty good expectation for what the job consists of. This method also gives the team a little time to gel together if the team has had a lot of turnover from previous years (which the Browns have had) before the quarterback gets into the game. I believe the Browns offensive line consists of a number of new players, and the entire lineup on the O-line hadn't even played one game together in the preseason, I believe. Time playing together is considered very important for an offensive line, as they need experience knowing how each other react when faced with the various blitz schemes NFL defensive coordinators throw at them.

Anyway, the popular theory is that Brady Quinn will make his way into the starting lineup week 8, after the Browns' bye week. There will probably be much clamoring from fans and media in Cleveland to see him sooner, but Browns GM Phil Savage seems pretty deadset on not rushing his QB into the starting position.

One more thing on the Browns starting Brady: the Browns early season schedule contains several teams that are considered to have top ten calibre defenses. They probably want to get past that part of the schedule before putting the rookie in there.

That makes total and complete sense. Thanks.

Still, though, I will not be held responsible for my actions if Frye-for-fries touches the ball ever again.

Hey, fuckers. Week 1 ain't over yet. Tonight the new 49ers (including two high-draft position rookie starters) get rolled out and roadtested against a strengthening division rival on MNF so hold onto ya butts!1

So, what rooks do the 9ers have starting? Patrick Willis was their first round pick? And their second was that tackle out of some smaller school? Many prognosticators this preseason have been fond of saying, "The 49ers are for real." And the Cards have been picked for several recent years as a "surprise" team (I think people are finally off of their bandwagon as a surprise team, when this year they probably have more potential than any other recent year). I will maintain a somewhat skeptical stance on both of these teams until I see what they can do. Whoever wins tonight has probably proven very little, since these two teams are very weird with one another. I think a couple of years ago the 9ers only two wins were against the Cardinals, and the Cardinals had more overall wins than the 9ers. How is Frank Gore, anyway? Has his broken hand gotten better? I of course have a little bit of a vested interest in the Cardinals, since they are now sort of "Pittsburgh West," having both the Steelers' ex-offensive coordinator and their ex-O-line coach.

How'd your 9ers do last night, Sicky?

Christmas came early!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014233



*dances a little jig*

I can't follow this link at work, but I assume it's about Frye being traded? And I thought his benching was fast. Well, that's one guy definitely out of Quinn's way. I think at this point they'd probably be inclined to move up the schedule for Quinn starting, but I think they've got Oakland, New England, Baltimore and Miami all before the bye. Those probably aren't really the defenses they'd like to start him out against.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:I can't follow this link at work, but I assume it's about Frye being traded? And I thought his benching was fast. Well, that's one guy definitely out of Quinn's way. I think at this point they'd probably be inclined to move up the schedule for Quinn starting, but I think they've got Oakland, New England, Baltimore and Miami all before the bye. Those probably aren't really the defenses they'd like to start him out against.

Yeah, Frye was traded to Seattle for a sixth round draft pick. He left Browns HQ without saying a word.

Cleveland wanted to throw in a fiver and a Pizza Hut coupon, too, but Seattle said Frye would suffice.

For the firewall challenged:

Just one game into the season, the Cleveland Browns will make a change at quarterback, as the team on Tuesday afternoon dealt third-year veteran Charlie Frye, who started Sunday's regular-season opener but was benched early in the game, to the Seattle Seahawks.



Frye
It is believed that the Browns, who spent much of Monday seeking a trade partner for Frye, received a draft choice in return.


There is no word yet on who will start for Cleveland in next Sunday's home game against the Cincinnati Bengals. The departure of Frye could pave the way for the Browns to turn the starting job over to first-round draft pick Brady Quinn of Notre Dame, but general manager Phil Savage on Monday cautioned that it might be too early for the former Notre Dame star to be elevated to that status.



Savage cited the 1999 season when, after a blowout loss to Pittsburgh, the Browns benched starting veteran Ty Detmer and moved first-round pick Tim Couch, the top overall selection in the draft that year, into the lineup. Cleveland finished 2-14 that season, and Couch, clearly not ready yet to start, struggled throughout the year.



There had been rumors following Sunday's lopsided loss to the Steelers that Frye might be traded or released. Frye completed only four of 10 passes for 34 yards and an interception in the game -- a QB rating of 10.0 -- and was replaced by Derek Anderson at 6;34 of the second quarter. Anderson did not fare much better, going 13-of-28 for 184 yards.



Those rumors gained some steam Monday when journeyman quarterback Ken Dorsey, who had been a mentor to Quinn in training camp, arrived at the Browns' complex. The team is expected to re-sign Dorsey, a four-year veteran, on Tuesday afternoon.



Frye, 26, was a third-round choice in the 2005 draft, and the former Akron star moved into the starting lineup in the final month of his rookie campaign. He started the first 13 games in 2006, then missed the final three outings of the year with a wrist injury.



In camp this summer, Frye competed with Anderson for the top job on the depth chart, and was named the starter the week before the opener. But the loss to Pittsburgh was disastrous and the Browns decided to make a quick change.



In his three-year career, Frye has completed 354 of 568 passes for 3,490 yards, with 14 touchdown passes and 24 interceptions, for an efficiency rating of 70.2. He has started in 19 of his 21 appearances.



With the Seahawks, Frye will be the No. 3 quarterback on the depth chart, behind starter Matt Hasselbeck and primary backup Seneca Wallace, who recently signed a contract extension. The Seahawks have been seeking another veteran quarterback since releasing David Greene in the final cutdown to the 53-player roster.


Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.

Ipsilon wrote:Cleveland wanted to throw in a fiver and a Pizza Hut coupon, too, but Seattle said Frye would suffice.

LMAO!!!!


By the way, did Savage consult the Fox network when he decided to pull Frye after 1 game? Sounds a little familiar....