ATL-CAR Game Thread

>>just don't see how we could afford to spend the money on both the best FA QB and use a #1 on a QB

I don't think we should put all our money into QB, but we're talking about a 3-4 year deal in the range of a few million a year with incentives for a starting QB like King and paying a #1 pick no matter what position that pick goes to. We're going to pay that pick no matter what, and if that's a QB, then it's a QB.

Just like we'll probably need a starting WR. By that rationale can we not afford to spend a #1 on receiver? We'd still need a long term star.

We can't afford not to have a good vet starter and I don't think you'd argue that we can afford to pass over the right guy at QB just beucase he's a first rounder and not a second rounder. I'm not looking to have anybody cash in on us - I'm looking for solid moves, not Bledsoe money. We're not going to be overspending on anybody hopefully, just paying them for what they'd be worth as our starter should that continue.

We can't afford to go with a third rate QB as our starter in hopes we get "the future", a damnable phrase if there ever was, and we certainly shouldn't have to give up on drafting a QB just because we got a vet.

We need a lot of offensive help. It's not too much to bring two guys in IMO.

 

Bucs got King at 3rd string. They had Brad when they brought in Rob. Explain that. Also explain how Ty Detmers back-up comes in and throws TD passes and we have 3 that can't hardly complete a pass.

I'm saying take the best available before, during, and after the draft and let them work it out in camp, then choose. Cap really counts when you get down to 53 right?

 

I've brought King up a time or two here and on a couple of other boards. To me he's the best available option left in FA. After Brooks got his deal from the Saints, he's the only guy I've looked at. He fits better than Plummer(too inconsistant and too costly) who relies more on his feet than in his arm (which is sorta weak anyway). King has played in a ball control offense already and is more of the pocket type guy I'd be looking for. Forget about Warner(too costly and injuries are beginning to pile up) or Bulger(RFA =big tender + draft pick), we need to keep the picks we have and they wouldn't be cost effective. King's younger than both Plummer and Warner anyway.

I'd give King a three or four year deal and draft a QB in the top two rounds. As I saw posted on another board Fasani is ticketed to NFLE to learn the ropes more than likely. That'd be the best thing for him IMHO. It'll get him some experience in carrying an offense.

WR will definately need addressing in the top two picks. We can grab a good to decent guy there. No need in drafting a guy later that's no better than a 3 or 4 and try and turn him into a 2 like we've tried to do with Smith this year. I agree that we need to grab a vet here also. Remember, we're looking for a 2 and not a 1 here (Moose is our 1) that'll help in keeping the price somewhat lower.

 

>>To me (King)'s the best available option left in FA.

Probably. I'm sure there'll be someone cut that's better, but King should be our first priority. He's not as accurate as Plummer but he still makes all the throws and isn't nearly as inaccurate on his bad days as the three we have.

>>I'd give King a three or four year deal and draft a QB in the top two rounds.

Yep.

>>As I saw posted on another board Fasani is ticketed to NFLE to learn the ropes more than likely.

I'd expect. He really needs the development time, and preferably away from our coaches

 

>> Just like we'll probably need a starting WR. By that rationale can we not afford to spend a #1 on receiver?

point taken.

if you can afford a King and a legit #1 WR through FA and shore up the OL and use our first pick on a QB, then that would be great. i have no idea what King would cost or even how the numbers would effect out cap. I don't think he's a proven starter ... is he? so i wouldn't think his price would come that high. so maybe we could afford him.

what are our needs?

defense:

if Naives is the only one with high potential of us losing (though i hope we can resign him) then we could get by with our starting group (with Wspoon taking over Naives spot) though we probably need to upgrade CB and strong safety. Think we need to add at least vet DB to replace McDaniel, add depth at LB, DT and DE.

offense:

QBs, WRs, TE, FB, RT (and possibly RB) are all desparate needs. Don't know the FA/retirement status of the rest of OL but figure we need at least another OL that can step in and be a starter plus we need to improve depth.

So how would it go?

King/Plummer/whoever (FA) - starter
#1 - QB (backup)
#2 - WR
#3 - TE
#4 - FB
#4 - RB
#5 - WR

RT (FA) - starter
OL (FA) - starter
OL (FA) - depth
WR (FA) - #3/4
DB (FA) - nickle
DB (FA) - depth
LB (FA) - depth
DT (FA) - depth
DE (FA) - depth

the problems as i see it are:

1) if we spend a lot of money on a FA QB -- would we have enough left over to address our other needs? could be. as i think we are going to continue to shop very conservatively. probably tackle it like they did the DBs this year ... bring in a lot of cheap guys hoping to hit gold with a couple. keeping our money so we can resign the players now on the team that we want to keep. i'll be surprised if we sign any big-name guys.

2) i don't see a top FA QB coming here without some assurance from the Panthers that they aren't going to be drafting a "franchise" with their first pick. I assume that there will be plenty of competition for the Kings, if they are as good as you think, and I also assume that they will seek to go to a team that they feel they have at least an even chance to be the starter for next few years. at least, any QB that i think that we would want would have that mindset and not just be looking to cash in. if we plan to draft a "franchise," i'd think we would be much more likely able to get some vet like B-line that is pretty much looked at around the league as basically backup material and that would be willing to come in here with the mindset that the young stud would be taking over from him fairly quickly.

3) would we create an instant ugly QB controversy by having two good QBs here? Sandy would be crying for the rook and you would be arguing the logic of staying with King.

4) we probably wouldn't get that top flight receiver that we desparately need with our second pick and don't think there's any way Hurney would buy one in FA even if there's one there. so unless we get lucky and come up with a Jeffers, I think we will still be hurting at WR. i'm about done with Moose. he is too inconsistent and injury prone to consider him to be a good receiver.

if King is as good as you think, then why not get him and say a Plummer and use our first pick on WR (wouldn't this be cheaper than King, Ragone and a #1 WR (along the lines of a R. Williams)through FA (if there'd be such a creature)? wouldn't either King or Plummer have been much better than Peete/Weinke and have been enough to have won most of those close games we lost? this would also allow us to bump all our other needs up a round? ie. we get a TE with our second, etc.?

i'd love to see us get a stud rookie QB and i think that's what we will do. but i'll be surprised if we also get a bigtime vet QB. i don't think King is, so that'd be possibility in my mind. i don't think Plummer would ever consider coming here if he wasn't assured that we weren't planning on using our first pick on a QB.

 

First off, there's no guarantee at all that a QB has to be a #1 to be the so-called "future". That player can come from the second or even third, based on this draft. So it's not so much frustrating as curious to have you continually suggest that QB is first round or not at all, based on your thoughts as I view them.


>>if Naives is the only one with high potential of us losing (though i hope we can resign him) then we could get by with our starting group

I'd like to see Hannibal re-sign. I think he's playing at a higher level than Witherspoon, who's been below average in pass coverage. The idea is to have Will take over, but I hope they don't just let it happen if they don't think he's ready. I don't want anyone to "grow into" a position in another year. He'll get abused like TB did to him.

As far as DE depth, keeping Wallace and bringing back Smith should be more than enough. I'd have been comfortable starting Smith at end if I'd have to, and that's the type backup you'd love to have.

>>i have no idea what King would cost or even how the numbers would effect out cap. I don't think he's a proven starter ... is he?

He's a proven starter of sorts, but he was also very young at the time he was starting. He started 21 games over his first two years, lower completion percentage (61% then 54%), keeps the INTs low, not a huge rushing threat but did score 5 TDs his full starting year. Seemed to do very well with a crappy O (that did have a running game, OK receivers, and a bad plan), took his team to the NFCC.

It's hard to say how much he's grown as a backup the last two years - he's done very well off the bench but in very little time. IMO he's better than Plummer because Plummer tries too hard to make it happen by himself.

King'll probably be fairly well sought by teams that have backups starting, but won't get as much money as Plummer or a cut starter like Testaverde or even Kordell.



>> 1) if we spend a lot of money on a FA QB -- would we have enough left over to address our other needs?

With over $10 mil in cap space, there's no way one player could take up more than a sixth of that unless we're talking a really big bonus.

>>3) would we create an instant ugly QB controversy by having two good QBs here? Sandy would be crying for the rook and you would be arguing the logic of staying with King.

Fans will inevitably be stupid half the time there's anyone who can come off the bench and be good. The idea there is that this magical benchwarmer will come in and be everything this team needs from the first snap and we'll go to the Super Bowl 30 times in a row. Watching shitty Disney family football movies will do that I guess.

Either way, you do what's best for this football team. If King came in here and sucked throughout the year, you look to put your young guy in. Not before. I'm tired of us fucking up average to decent QBs by rushing them.

>> 4) we probably wouldn't get that top flight receiver that we desparately need with our second pick and don't think there's any way Hurney would buy one in FA even if there's one there.

I think we really have to target at least a Gadsden or Coles in FA regardless of the draft just like we need to go get someone who's of starting level ability before the draft at QB. Adequate, smart, but still has life. There's no way to go through FA and not buy a guy like that. I don't honestly believe at all that Hurney would intentionally neglect WR like that - though he does basically go out and get what he's told. If I can suspend reality on Henning a while you can put your Hurney probs behind you too

But I don't think that lacking faith in this team's ability to go buy a receiver in FA is a reason to force our way into a #1 there. We need a vet there as well anyway, so no matter what we have three serviceable guys.

I think we're basically looking for someone who runs good routes and can push it upfield some. Gadsden's got a little deep speed, Coles has a tie to Henning and has more deep speed, I think someone of that nature could start here and be a benefit to this squad.





>>if King is as good as you think, then why not get him and say a Plummer and use our first pick on WR

for one, no future. While King's young, you'd be expectant that he'll be your starter for a few years. Same for Plummer. They're both starting level guys and you'd have trouble signing the second one on the idea of being a backup or competing with a similar player. To go on your earlier point, you may have to reassure him that you're not going to draft a QB early, but the more prudent thing to do is to suggest that you don't intend on playing him for at least a year.

>>wouldn't either King or Plummer have been much better than Peete/Weinke

Two starters do beat two backups, yes. Either a #1 being forced into the lineup or Doug Johnson would be better as well. It's not an idea of better, it's best possible. In my scenario, a Doug Johnson level player (Johnson himself is RFA, and therefore wouldn't be avail. after the draft) would be the backup after the draft if not a draft pick.

Either way the idea is to get someone who you are comfortable with starting at WR and QB, and then getting the best guys out there to fit behind those two. That's how I'd do it, anyway. I don't think you can necessarily say that you have to do it this way or that when you're dealing with a throw of the dice type luck in the draft.

 

>> First off, there's no guarantee at all that a QB has to be a #1 to be the so-called "future". That player can come from the second or even third, based on this draft. So it's not so much frustrating as curious to have you continually suggest that QB is first round or not at all, based on your thoughts as I view them.

My argument against the vet FA and a pick lower than the 1st is that you would then have a much more questionable rookie and Fasani as your only backups to a . . . King/Johnson who are no sure bonafide bets to begin with. I think it would be smarter to roll the dice with either 2 decent vets or a cheap vet and a "frachise" waiting in the wings.

To go with your plan, I'd think you'd almost have to cut Fasani in order to bring in a cheap vet backup (or keep Peete) and then let your rookie QB sit at 3 for a year. I don't think that would be a horrible plan as much as I like Fasani. But I don't think it will happen cuz I think the organization is also fond of Fasani.

>> I'd like to see Hannibal re-sign. I think he's playing at a higher level than Witherspoon, who's been below average in pass coverage.

Agree completely. Just threw that out because i think it's very possibe that they may not re-sign him.

>> With over $10 mil in cap space, there's no way one player could take up more than a sixth of that unless we're talking a really big bonus.

So what would be your guess as to how many needs we can fill in FA (and re-sign Hannibal) without hurting ourselves in future years. Starting QB, WR, RT and then what else?

>> I'm tired of us fucking up average to decent QBs by rushing them.

Now you have peaked my curiousity. What average to decent QBs have we fucked by rushing them? None come to my mind. Collins is the only average young QB that the Panthers ever had that i can think of. Did we fuck him by rushing him? Certainly you are not suggesting Lewis, Craig or Weinke. Well Lewis we didn't rush, so you must be speaking of Weinke. That was not a good situation for Weinke but to suggest he woulda been average to decent if we hadn't rushed him is pushing it. If anything, Fox has shown that he'd stick with a vet QB and let the "future" QBs develop on the bench, so I think you can put your worries to rest.

>> I don't honestly believe at all that Hurney would intentionally neglect WR like that

I'm skeptical. I didn't think that he would neglect WR this year but he did.

>> If I can suspend reality on Henning a while you can put your Hurney probs behind you too



>> But I don't think that lacking faith in this team's ability to go buy a receiver in FA is a reason to force our way into a #1 there. We need a vet there as well anyway, so no matter what we have three serviceable guys.

I think what we need more than anything (besides a QB) is a bigtime WR. If we could get one in the draft to go with a good QB, I'd be in heaven. In addition I'd like them to bring in a Gadsen or a Coles to compete with Moose and Smith. Now if we did all that, I'd be wetting on myself like Meat.

>>>if King is as good as you think, then why not get him and say a Plummer and use our first pick on WR
>>for one, no future.

You're forgetting about Fasani.

>> They're both starting level guys and you'd have trouble signing the second one on the idea of being a backup or competing with a similar player. To go on your earlier point, you may have to reassure him that you're not going to draft a QB early

I'd think they'd be much more likely to be willing to come in and compete with some other vet (who's no sure bet) than to have to compete with a "franchise" QB. If they beat out the other vet then chances are good they'd have the starting position for a few years; whereas, the "franchise" would almost certainly be taking over in short order. They understand that they will have to compete and perform wherever they go. All they should be looking for is a fair shot. Having to compete with a "franhise" QB is not exactly giving themselves a fair shot. I think like SD was able to bring in a Flutie when they drafted Brees is more what we should be looking to do. Catch a starting level vet on the tail-end of his career who's still got some fire in his britches.

>> but the more prudent thing to do is to suggest that you don't intend on playing him for at least a year.

I don't think you can make that promise. And I don't think that the promise of being a starter for the first year and then getting almost assuredly stuck being the backup for the next 3-4 years is gonna be too enticing to a young guy like King that thinks he can be the guy in the right situation.

>> it's best possible ... scenario

well in fantasy land, that would be getting a sure-fire still-young starting caliber FA QB for reasonable dollars that would be willing to come in and start for a year or two and then hand over the reigns to a franchise QB that we drafted in the second round (and would immediately provide adequate backup in his first couple years). and of course we would also get a couple of top flight WRs. and none of them would break the law or get seriously injured.

>> I don't think you can necessarily say that you have to do it this way or that when you're dealing with a throw of the dice type luck in the draft.

As you said, it's all good. Just fun to talk football and argue opinions especially about the upcomig draft (which will seem like an eternity away) and FA. I hate it but I have to rely on you guys for who we should get as I don't keep up.

 

>>You're forgetting about Fasani.

I've been trying.
Actually, no I'm not. Projects and so-called Franchise or QB of the Future QBs are totally different things. He's not a future guy, he gets labeled that way because he's not a "now" guy. Anything we ever get from him is gravy.

>>So what would be your guess as to how many needs we can fill in FA (and re-sign Hannibal) without hurting ourselves in future years. Starting QB, WR, RT and then what else?

That's probably it (save a possible LG in FA rather than RT), unless we decide to forego one of those for a starting back now that our circumstances have changed yet again. There's room for a guy or two in depth as well.

>>What average to decent QBs have we fucked by rushing them?
>>so you must be speaking of Weinke.

Yeah, it's not like he played much his rookie year, right? And yes, Collins did need to sit. He was handfed for two years and once that stopped he sucked. In your eagerness to defend Fox you failed to notice I wasn't talking about him.

>>I'm skeptical. I didn't think that (Hurney) would neglect WR this year but he did.

you're blaming the guy you want to blame. It's a team effort and Fox has been the one spearheading this offensive clusterfuck. Hurney's been doing a good job of getting the players Fox wanted, IMO. He's certainly not a top GM in his own right, but I don't blame him. He wasn't the one enamored with Steve Smith. He wasn't the one who was so set on the running game.


now about the QBs:

>>My argument against the vet FA and a pick lower than the 1st is that you would then have a much more questionable rookie and Fasani as your only backups

and you expect your starter not to struggle much. If he does, then you consider giving Fasani or your rookie a few relief performances, and then you most likely push your rookie in there if absolutely necesary. But the idea is to start a guy for at least a year, because in your scenario of getting some scrub Doug Pederson type to start for a few games and then drop a rook in there? I just don't see success in that.

>>I think what we need more than anything (besides a QB) is a bigtime WR.

I don't think we have to have a bigtime WR. If we must, we can draft one first round, because the way you suggest 2nd round QBs are that much of a dropoff? Simply isn't so. You suggest a much lesser rookie but yet those players will still be pretty major upgrades. I don't know what your problem is with second round QBs - either you're unknowing of the talent that'll be available or you just carry some stigma that suggests we must draft a guy first round for him to be worth a fuck.

Either way, I feel in FA we need a guy who can run good routes and has some speed once he turns it on. We don't need David Boston and there's only one Peerless Price to go around.

>>well in fantasy land

Yep. Fantasy Land. It's not like anyone's ever accomplished this before, right? It's inconceivable that a team could develop a QB on the bench and still have good QB play, I'm sure.

 

>> Fasani is not a future guy

That's not a fact. I think there's still hope there.

>> (save a possible LG in FA rather than RT), unless we decide to forego one of those for a starting back now that our circumstances have changed yet again. There's room for a guy or two in depth as well.

We need a LG more than a RT? I thought you were a fan of Nesbit. And I thought he was doing pretty well. Who's to play RT?

>>What average to decent QBs have we fucked by rushing them?so you must be speaking of Weinke.
>>Yeah

You confused me when you said "average to decent" (not that i know what the distinction between "average" and "decent" is but i think both refer to some performance beyond sucking dogmeat).

>> And yes, Collins did need to sit. He was handfed for two years and once that stopped he sucked.

?? He took us to the NFC champship game in his second year. Whatever happened after that that caused him to suck was not the result of his being rushed. If he was being handfed and that took us to a 12-4 season then we shoulda stuck with that formula.

>> In your eagerness to defend Fox you failed to notice I wasn't talking about him.

Little caustic comments like this tend to irritate me. I obviously wasn't trying to defend Fox. I was simply stating a fact that would suggest that what happened in the past with rushing QBs wouldn't happen again with our current coaches. You were the one that brought up the issue, not I. Funny how you like to ignore points that don't support your pretty much baseless rants.

>>I'm skeptical. I didn't think that (Hurney) would neglect WR this year but he did.
>>you're blaming the guy you want to blame.

as are you. truth be known, neither of us know exactly how much final say Hurney, Fox, Henning, JDR and O'Brien have. and it really doesn't matter. suffice to say that the organization did not get us a receiver (not even a gamble) this year, which concerns me. hurney could have been the one enamored with Smith. just because the coaches come out and say positive things about the players that they are stuck with doesn't necessarily mean that they were the ones that held out high hopes for them. all it means is that they are hoping/trying to get the best outa the guys they got, which means that they may try to build their enthusiasm and confidence by providing flattery to the media ... sorta like JDR talking up Gilbert when he got here even though he probably knew the guy sucked.

now about the QBs:

>>My argument against the vet FA and a pick lower than the 1st is that you would then have a much more questionable rookie and Fasani as your only backups
>>and you expect your starter not to struggle much.

and if he gets hurt? which seems to be a frequent thing for QBs in the NFL and considering our line, I think you'd have to consider the possibility.

>> because in your scenario of getting some scrub Doug Pederson type to start for a few games and then drop a rook in there? I just don't see success in that.

Not familiar with Doug, so that's not my scenario. I do think that someone along the lines of a Peete would be a better choice for a backup than some second round rookie draft pick that may or may not be worth a damn. From just watching the 1st round rookie QBs this year, none have been good at winning games. Saw Harrington yesterday and I'd say Fasani looks as good to me. So unless your suggesting that we concede next year as another rebuilding year, I'd rather have a vet in that backup role.

My hope is, again, that we get some solid vet that can be a caretaker for the "franchise" and then would willingly slide into being a capable backup until Fasani develops as a capable backup. I don't think we are going to talk a King or Plummer to come here under that plan. If by the end of this season, the organization does not see their being able to get a franchise QBin the draft (or trade up for a Leftwich), then I'd like to see us get a couple of guys in FA along the lines of a King/Plummer and use our first pick on a WR and then our second/third on a TE and FB. (Not so sure that they won't give JDR a bone with one of those 1st three picks and the ST will probaby get one of the 4ths/5th).

>> You suggest a much lesser rookie but yet those players will still be pretty major upgrades.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Most draftees are a gamble and take time to develop. As you go down in the draft, the bigger the gamble and more development time can be expected. The further down you go the bigger gamble you take that you won't get that WR, TE and FB you desparately need.

>> I don't know what your problem is with second round QBs - either you're unknowing of the talent that'll be available or you just carry some stigma that suggests we must draft a guy first round for him to be worth a fuck.

Simply, if we wait till the second round for a QB, he will be a much bigger gamble and probably take more development time than if we draft one in the 1st round or pick up a solid vet. To have that type of player as your backup QB seems awfully chancy unless you're conceding the season anyway. If you're not conceding the season, then I think you'd have to cut Fasani and bring in some decent vet to be your backup ... unless Fasani gets a few chances at the end of this season and starts to show well.

>>Yep. Fantasy Land. It's not like anyone's ever accomplished this before, right? It's inconceivable that a team could develop a QB on the bench and still have good QB play, I'm sure.

good luck. i hope it happens. just skeptical when considering the realities. actually, we're pretty close in thought. i just don't think we will land both a King and a "franchise." i also don't like the idea of starting a King with your only backup being some second round pick. it might would work with the second rounder but i think it would be a huge and foolish gamble ... unless Fasani is really comes around by the end of this season.

 

>>That's not a fact. I think there's still hope there.

So are you to suggest he's done anything to be considered "the future"? Is he someone you'd legitimately say is someone who will keep us from needing a younger QB (including a young FA) and instead we should go get an aging guy to start for a while? I seriously don't think so. If you do, well, I got nothing for you.

>>We need a LG more than a RT? I thought you were a fan of Nesbit. And I thought he was doing pretty well. Who's to play RT?

Yes, I do think Nesbit is our best LG. It doesn't actually show as easy as you make it, where you're a fan or an enemy of different players, but Nesbit's our best guard.

That doesn't mean he stays, and whether he stays or not money's going to be involved. We may decide to wait on RT and buy a left guard now, or we may do the opposite and get the RT now. I don't think we will do both, even though we should.

>>You confused me when you said "average to decent"

I know I confused you. It's not a secret you don't like Weinke, I'm not as much for him myself but he's certainly talented and can do more than he's done here.

>>He took us to the NFC champship game in his second year. Whatever happened after that that caused him to suck was not the result of his being rushed. If he was being handfed and that took us to a 12-4 season then we shoulda stuck with that formula.

You lack perspective. It was best for the team short term, because of bad planning at QB otherwise and pressure to win now. It wasn't best for Collins, or the team, long term as he lacked maturity and struggled when the game was turned up to a normal level for him.


>>as are you.

No. I'm not blaming the guy I want to blame. I'm blaming the ones who have stepped up and stated their philosophies and going on that as my basis. I have no reason to suggest that WR was a low priority to Hurney himself, nor do you. I do have reason to suggest that this team had plenty of opportunities to get a receiver, and yet found that Steve Smith was considered adequate and that we had depth.

It may not be right to blame them, but the three work as a team and Hurney's going to go get the guys he's asked to go get. Of the two I'm going to use the actual words we've both read rather than speculation.

>>Little caustic comments like this tend to irritate me.

I'd imagine so, yes. But that's what I see. You've never been unwilling to suggest things about me, you're just more eager to claim foul.

>>I obviously wasn't trying to defend Fox. I was simply stating a fact that would suggest that what happened in the past with rushing QBs wouldn't happen again with our current coaches.

You suggested that Fox was going to shy from the young QB as a rule. That doesn't suggest development, it doesn't suggest doing what's best for the QB, or the team, as much as being conservative enough not to want to make mistakes.

>>You were the one that brought up the issue, not I. Funny how you like to ignore points that don't support your pretty much baseless rants.

Uh oh...looks like we're back to using "little caustic comments" two sentences after whining about mine. Figure out whether you're going to play your games or not so I'll have the book on it. I certainly won't abide by your rules till you do.

Show where I ignored the statement. I wasn't talking about Fox and you brought absolutely nothing to that portion of the table other than weak-assed attempts at ridicule until now.

And to answer your one point, there's absolutely no fact that would suggest "that what happened in the past with rushing QBs wouldn't happen again with our current coaches." There's one opinion, which has little to do with the fact that the QBs we had were rookies and everything to do with the fact that the coach is afraid to chance any turnover at any point.

>>and if he gets hurt? which seems to be a frequent thing for QBs in the NFL and considering our line, I think you'd have to consider the possibility.

It happens. The same scenario applies as if bad play, just in a more permanent situation. It's not rocket science to figure out that a young guy would play. It's not a reason to go hire 2 veterans just to shelter a player. He's learning, not hibernating.

>>Not familiar with Doug, so that's not my scenario.

It is, you're just unaware of it. You suggested a free agent who'd be a backup to get first, and then wait until after the draft (otherwise known as "when the starters are already with their teams") if needed to get the starter. Doug Pederson is a WCO dinosaur who Philly bought to start over McNabb.

>>I do think that someone along the lines of a Peete would be a better choice for a backup than some second round rookie draft pick that may or may not be worth a damn.

Yeah, because since they're second round picks they will just automatically suck and will never be any good.

Peete would be a better immediate backup. No shit. But Peete has no future here.

>Saw Harrington yesterday and I'd say Fasani looks as good to me.

Can I use this as a quote, under your previous signature?
That's really pretty funny, that you couldn't tell the difference between a rookie's worst day of the year against a damn good defense and what Fasani's looked like every regular season playing situation.

>So unless (you're) suggesting that we concede next year as another rebuilding year, I'd rather have a vet in that backup role.

That makes no sense. To suggest that a rookie backup keeps you from being as good as you could be? The worst thing that happens - injury - means you start over and you develop the rook on the go. It's necessity, but it's something that's overcome. Most of these guys could start and play a full season as a rookie, there's just a lot less gained in most situations than winning with a vet and rookies learning on the sideline. It doesn't mean we carry five QBs just so our rookie can be shielded from injury.

>I don't think we are going to talk a King or Plummer to come here under that plan.

No, you bring a player like that to be a starter here for a year, and then you let your rookie overtake him after that point unless dire circumstances change that.

>then I'd like to see us get a couple of guys in FA along the lines of a King/Plummer

it's funny how you argue that one player wouldn't come here to be a starter for a year or more, but two players would come here under the pretense that he may never be a starting QB ever again after starting previously. How does that work only for your argument, even though the chances of getting King or Plummer to come in as a backup are very small? I'd rather be a starter and have to play out of my job than to have to work uphill against another veteran.

>>Simply, if we wait till the second round for a QB, he will be a much bigger gamble and probably take more development time than if we draft one in the 1st round or pick up a solid vet.

Yeah. Dorsey will take so long to develop, right? Much longer than Palmer, who took years to actually start playing good.

>not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

yes, I know.
"You suggest a much lesser rookie " means that you devalue second round picks greatly compared to first round picks. "but yet those players will still be pretty major upgrades" means "those players will still be pretty major upgrades." It means they're still good players, they're just not top ten value and two or three of them will be there in the second.

>Most draftees are a gamble and take time to develop. As you go down in the draft, the bigger the gamble and more development time can be expected.

Not as a rule. Second and third round players are often at least as ready and polished as first rounders, they just lack measurables that may or may not be useful to the QB position. Some do drop to the second because they take time to develop, but that's generally based more on individual team need than value.

>>just skeptical when considering the realities.

What realities? The ones where you basically decide you're going to argue with any situation I suggest? It's something you yourself have suggested you do.

You're suggesting your own misconceptions, which is that the talent level of a Kyle Boller or Rex Grossman or Ken Dorsey is that much less than Dave Ragone or Eli Manning, and that a player is first round-rated because he's more ready. That's untrue.

And all the while I'm suggesting that either round's player would have to sit and learn.

>>seems awfully chancy unless you're conceding the season anyway.

First off, what's more important - 2003 or good QB play for the next five years or more?

Putting in a guy like King and then hiring a cruddy third level QB like Doug Johnson means that we play King for three years, Johnson plays relief if King gets hurt and Fasani's our "future". That's not much of a future especially considering even you, his proclaimed fan, suggests he's not good enough to be a backup next year.

If this was really about "conceding the season", we'd draft a QB first round regardless, we'd keep a schlep like Peete to backup and we'd play the rookie regardless. That has nothing to do with having a rookie as a backup, especially considering the rookie will be both more talented and more ready than Fasani AS A RULE.

>>i just don't think we will land both a King and a "franchise."

Of course not. But we can go get King AND Plummer. Naturally.

The best we could do is to get a guy someone else didn't want as a backup to be our backup. I'd rather take a rookie and chance him playing some than go with another set of guys who shouldn't be backups.