ATL-CAR Game Thread

>>So are you to suggest he's done anything to be considered "the future"?

I didn't say or imply that. I simply said that you can't yet completely write the guy off. I have seen enough to have hope that he will develop into a good starting QB in time but not enough to bet all my chips on him ... or to fold on 'em.

If you'd quit trying to trap me by putting words into my mouth and read what i have said, which is that I hope we draft a frachise QB or bring in a couple of stud vets along the lines of a King, the conversation would flow a little smoother. I think I have said repeatedly that I would not want to go with either Fasani or some second-round draftee as our backup QB.

I am not of the opinion that we have to come up with our "future" this year. If we have some "young" vet come in that can be a good QB for the next 3-4 years, then that would mean we would have another 2-3 years to draft or trade for our future.

>> Nesbit

Still confused. Is he gonna be FA and that is why you saying that we would look to fix that spot before getting a RT? James did not seem to be that bad in there. I'd rather see us address both tackle spots even if we were losing Nesbit. And isn't Donnalley getting close to the end of the line?

>> and Weinke can do more than he's done here.

don't hold your breath. course it wouldn't take much. what's his record here?

>>You lack perspective.

You'll have to explain that to me if you want me to comprehend. How can the team having gone 12-4 and one game away from the Superbowl not been in the best interest of the team. How did putting him in that position hamper his development. Why would you turn up the game to a "normal" level if you're going 12-4 with what you are doing? The cat lacked maturity ... and that caused him problems off the field. He also got his jaw cracked and never seemed to be the same afterwards. I'm not sure that any team could have been expected to wait on the guy to mature or for his jaw to toughen up. You can argue poor draft pick if you want but to say that we screwed him up by playing him too quickly is bull.

>>Of the two I'm going to use the actual words we've both read rather than speculation.

And so when JDR came out and said that he expected Gilbert to have a big year, you just took him at his word? You are smarter than that. If you don't agree with my speculation that's fine as I have already admitted that I can't support my feelings. Chances are good that you are right. But to make the above argument is sad.

>> You've never been unwilling to suggest things about me, you're just more eager to claim foul.

I was trying hard to discuss and not get into an attack mode with you. So I didn't understand this little attack by you.

>> You suggested that Fox was going to shy from the young QB as a rule.

What are you arguing? I thought you were upset that we had rushed QBs in the past and now you seem to be saying that not rushing a young QB would be a bad thing. I'm not going to get into a Fox debate with you and certainly not about hypotheticals. I simply stated that based on how he handled the QBs this year it would appear that he would not rush a young QB, which based on your earlier statement, shoulda pleased you.

>>Uh oh...looks like we're back to using "little caustic comments" two sentences after whining about mine.

Figured tit for tat was fair. You catch me being caustic, point it out and then feel free to make a caustic comment back. I'd expect it. That's the official rules for the game of Funny Football Discussion. Of course the rules are always subject to my continuing interpretation. :;

>> 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."

However you see it, fact remains that Fox went with the vet (and still is despite the season being lost) over the "rookies." That would suggest that he would not rush a young QB. You can argue that it would suggest that he would rush a young QB if he thought that would give the team its best opportunity to win in the present (like we did with Collins) and I would agree that that would be the more likely scenario.

>>and if he gets hurt?
>> It happens. It's not a reason to go hire 2 veterans just to shelter a player.

But if we are trying to win, why not give ourselves the best chance in the likely case that the starter goes down? If we are still into developing the future and not winning, then let's not pussyfoot around about it. Get a franchise QB in here and chaulk next season up to rebuilding.

>> 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.

Actually, I think my most recent suggestion is that we should know pretty much where we want to turn for a QB by the end of the season. If we think we can get that franchise QB based on our draft position and who is available, then I'd look to get decent vet that can start but be willing to become the backup once the "franchise" is ready. If not, I'd go get a King/Plummer combination and let them fight it out. I have given my reasons why I don't think we will be able to get a King and a "franchise." If we can and can afford it, that would be awesome.

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

No. Because a vet will be pretty much a surer bet. A second round QB seems dicey to count on for your future much less to be the backup QB in his first season. Could we get a steal there? Possibly. Just seems like a lousy gamble.

>> Can I use this as a quote, under your previous signature?

Previous signature? You've lost me. But quote away. But remember the tit for tat rule. Might be possible to find some quote of yours regarding prevous QBs that you'd regret seeing again.

Okay, so i was stretching just a smidgen. Point was more to the fact that he was the third overall draft pick and 1st QB taken and he sucked royally yesterday. Comparing him to Fasani was just my way of saying just how bad he sucked. If you are in the playoff hunt, do you really want a Ramsey to be your QB if your starter goes down?

>> It's necessity, but it's something that's overcome.

But I don't think you overcome with a second round rookie as your backup. Harington was supposedly as polished as they come outa college and he's had a huge adjustment. Unless you're awfully fortunate, your season is over. If you have a decent vet, you still have a chance. Since you know what's out there, would a sure-fire "franchise" QB possibly drop to us in the second round. How many other "franchise" QBs would get picked before we'd pick in the second round?

>> 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.

But why would they come here under that plan? Who wants to come to a team where the handwriting is already all the wall that the will be stuck being a backup after a year? I mean, along the lines of a King.

>> I'd rather be a starter and have to play out of my job than to have to work uphill against another veteran.

Well, you may be right. Could be pollyanna on my part. But I would think that King and Plummer would have to compete for the starter spot no matter where they go so I think we could get a couple of QBs of this caliber to come in here and compete. If it was me, I'd rather take my chances competing against a King or a Plummer than a Leftwich or a Manning. At least against a King or Plummer, I would have a chance to keep the job if I won it.

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

i'd like to win next year and i would think we could. i think we could draft a franchise and win or get a good vet in here and win. the issues are more 1) can we get both a good, young vet QB and a franchise, and 2) would a 2nd round draftee and Fasani be acceptable as your backups next year if you are thinking playoffs.

If we were to get in a couple of good vets next year and pass on drafting a QB, we could look at getting a QB in the following years -- after we have had another year to look at Fasani and let him develop. By the end of 2003 maybe he would be far enough along to be a decent backup, which would allow us to try to chance drafting a future in the second round. And if we never draft a future, we can always keep shuffling thru vets hoping to find a Gannon, Garcia or Moon.

>> 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

You see no hope in getting a couple of Kings to come here and that working out?

>> 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.

Now you are talking, except that I think the schlep would start until the rook was ready. Wouldn't want to upset you over rushing a QB.

>> The best we could do is to get a guy someone else didn't want as a backup to be our backup.

Teams get good QBs from FA all the time.

>> I'd rather take a rookie (in the second round) and chance him playing some than go with another set of guys who shouldn't be backups.

And I'd rather go with a franchise or a couple of solid looking vets (and a first round WR) than to count on a second round draft pick at QB as being both our backup and our future.

 

Ever consider doing a Clift Notes version of your ramblings? Going back to your earlier post, sign 10 FA's including a starting QB all with only 10 million in cap space? The QB alone is gonna cost you 3-5 million(cap hit) for a starter. Playoffs next year? Not likely. Some of us tried to tell the rest of you after the team started 3-0 not to buy into the hype. Let's worry about getting to .500 first.

The defense's overhaul is about complete outside of depth at DT, an OLB (Navies walks), and better corners. The offense is another story entirely. Part of it's the system, but most of it is the talent. Lamar was never meant to be the full time starter and Foster now is in limbo. We have no legit #2 WR. The TE isn't even in the game plan most of the time (big mistake), FB is shakey. Hoover may have hands (sometimes he's the white Moose), his blocking leaves alot to be desired. We now need a legit starter at RT and upgrades at both G spots. Moose needs to get over himself and become more of a team guy(the Keyshawn-lite act may play well in NY or Tampa, but it doesn't on a struggling team), not dropping most of the passes coming his way wouldn't hurt either. RB is a more of a need now when it wasn't just two days ago. QB we'll have to bring in two guys in either combo. This would be the year to grab a QB, there are at least 6 guys out there that can get the job done. Take one of them and don't wait on next year in the same manner we did at RB until we drafted Foster.

When all's said and done, the team is two to three years away with all the holes still left to fill. You may not like hearing that, but it's more realistic than what's being spoonfed to you and the rest of the fans.

 

>> Some of us tried to tell the rest of you after the team started 3-0 not to buy into the hype.

You did at that. My hat is off to you.

>> We have no legit #2 WR.

I'm not sure that we have a legit WR period.

>> RB

If Foster can't be counted on then we are indeed in a world of a mess. Even if he can be counted on, having to find a capable backup will really stretch us. Brown has looked better than I expected and could be a decent backup. I'd rather have had a healthy/sober Foster and Smith. But if Foster could come back and be a stud and we get us a franchise QB, a couple good receivers, a FB and shore up our line thr FA, we could make the playoffs on the strength of our defense ... if we can quit having guys being suspended. With our cap room and presumedly high draft position and extra pick we should be able to address most of the above. Wee bit optimistic perhaps but I think playoffs would be possible next year. Most of the deadwood will be gone by next year and we should have a great foundation.

>> the team is two to three years away with all the holes still left to fill

it is my belief that you don't have to fill all the holes to make the playoffs or even the Super Bowl anymore. a great defense can get you there with a decent offense. maybe 2 years away, if we draft a franchise, but not 3.

 

I guess I should have been a little clearer. Even with 10 mil in cap room, we don't have the money to fill all the holes next year. You have to sign your draft picks out of that money also. The Rookie Cap is a subset of the overall cap. This year it was 5.078 million. As you can see, half the money's already gone before we've spent it. It'll likely be in the same neighborhood next year. Sure that number doesn't include cutting Weinke and Gilbert (and maybe Lamar and Anderson)or maybe Walls retiring, but you see my point. I'd be happy with a good QB, a WR, and a decent OT. After the cuts and maybe a couple of restructures maybe nab another CB (if we don't re-sign Fair) and another serviceable backup QB. We'll continue to build through the draft and not overspend on FA's.

Depending on where we're slotted and if Manning comes out to further increase the number of good QB's available, if one of Leftwich, Manning, or Palmer are not there, maybe go with the second tier (but still capable) by either trading down or grabbing who is left at the top of the 2nd. If that's the case, jump all over a WR in the 1st. We do have to keep a close eye on Foster's rehab, if he's not going to be able to come back, we'll have to strongly consider a RB such as McGhee or Johnson.

 

Can this thread die already?

I'm sick of seeing the "ATL-CAR Game Thread". can you guys pick this up in a another titled thread please?





BTW, King sucks. Granted, he's better than anybody on this roster, but he still sucks. We don't want him, atleast not for more than want the Bucs are using him for.

 

this cap stuff is too much for me. could we afford a starting OL and a decent WR and backup QB and a decent RB in FA considering all the cats you mention that will be gone after the end of the season?

if so, could we not then draft a franchise QB, a WR, a TE and a FB with our first four picks and be a much better team next year. granted we won't get all of this cuz we will probably have to throw JDR a bone or two for his defense. but even so, we'd have a stronger defense (hopefully grant, peppers and the other youngsters would gain from this year's experience) and we'd have filled many of our most glaring needs on offense ... if all the FAs and draftees worked out reasonably well.

 

>>I didn't say or imply that. I simply said that you can't yet completely write the guy off.

We were talking about a guy you know you can devote time and money for the future to. We both seem to agree that Fasani is not that guy.

>>If you'd quit trying to trap me by putting words into my mouth and read what

I have no need to do so. I don't feel I am. I'm certainly reading what you're saying, but you seem to be doing more reacting than putting out your own thoughts. You keep pushing out biases against the idea of getting a free agent to start and a draft pick to groom, and you certainly have something against second round QBs. I can't be held responsible for what you represent.

>>Still confused.

Yes, I know. I know you're smart enough to understand that re-signing Nesbit would take money, and I think I was clear enough in saying that I'd imagine we'll either buy a RT or a LG, the other regrettably will be a rookie expected to start. I don't know what's unclear about that statement - one is a FA, one is a draft pick. We'll most likely not rely on one method for both spots.

>>>>(re: You lack perspective) You'll have to explain that to me if you want me to comprehend.

It means you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're worried about being right with your point rather than looking at Collins developmentally over time and his struggles directly after 1996 to today, when he's still not that good a QB and still basically does the same things he did before. He's shown very little growth.

That's what I mean by lacking perspective. You want to argue against my point, you have a 12-4 record that suggests you're right and that certainly doesn't paint the picture of Collins' development. But I'll expect that you'll hang onto that point no matter what.



>>And so when JDR came out and said that he expected Gilbert to have a big year, you just took him at his word?

That has nothing at all to do with this. It's dodging. You have nothing on Hurney's "philosophies" because he has none. He's a talent evaluator going and getting what Fox and Henning want.

Both Fox and Henning have come out and said they were going to dedicate themselves to the run. Meanwhile WR is neglected entirely, even though the team is said to be "interested". Suddenly we just stop pursuing.

But I'm not expecting you to change on that, I'll expect you'll use Hurney as the problem anyway.

>>I was trying hard to discuss and not get into an attack mode with you. So I didn't understand this little attack by you.

It states what it states. You're very eager to tell me I'm saying things harshly but unwilling to address that you did so first.
I'm not going to sit here and whine about it. I don't rightly give a fuck. Ask Sandy, I'll go to the level you want to go to. Just stop complaining when you take yourself too far.

>>Figured tit for tat was fair. You catch me being caustic, point it out and then feel free to make a caustic comment back.

Yes. I told you once we're playing by your rules. I expect you to be the one to be civil first because you brought us here, you whined, and now you're expecting sovereignty without even the first hint of you backing down. I told you - I don't care. I'll go there. I won't feel bad about it and I damn sure won't have somebody try to use it to win some dumbass argument.

>>Previous signature?

yes..."your greatest danger may be your own stupidity" or something else condescending of that nature. I figure after saying that a rookie with command of the WCO and the ability to read to the third receiver looks a whole lot like a guy who barely played IN COLLEGE and locks on to the first man until he sees the rush, in which he locks onto running as a crutch, that those two guys aren't even laughably close. And that's at Harrington's worst.
Take note, saying stuff like that doesn't help.

>>But if we are trying to win, why not give ourselves the best chance in the likely case that the starter goes down? If we are still into developing the future and not winning, then let's not pussyfoot around about it. Get a franchise QB in here and chaulk next season up to rebuilding.

Difference of opinion. I'd rather attempt to win and stil develop someone. You suggest that's fantasy land, that's pollyanna BS, that's whatever you want to call it so you don't have to acknowledge it. It's the way teams have built the best in my opinion, even though it only happens in dreams, or something.

In other words, shit happens. Your young backup would play some, based on trends. I'd rather develop someone and have them play a little than just throw them out there and expect they'll just be good enough.

Listen, whatever your bias is against second round QBs, it's getting old. There's no lack of talent in the second round, you've all but admitted you don't know what's out there, and you go around expecting that second rounders are trash compared to first rounders. It's probably the only frustrating thing out of all this, that you're closed minded about second rounders when they're going to be starting for people after, on average, the same amount of development time.

If you're going to continue your problems with second rounders, go actually find out about these guys and at least make an attempt at being informed first. If not, which is more than acceptable, we'll continue this discussion talking about drafting a player rather than what round.

>>You see no hope in getting a couple of Kings to come here and that working out?

I see no hope of getting a second one in here when the first one's signed. You seem to suggest that two starters would sign to one team but one starter wouldn't sign, three months before any move had ever been made toward the draft? That a player who's a starter would willingly sign to battle an equal for a job, signing a multi year deal to possibly be a backup, at all?

Players sign all the time with expectations taht that team will eventually replace him with a young QB if they need to. They deal with it. You don't find that many QBs just decide they want to battle to start after having had free reign.

>>But why would they come here under that plan?

to start. You're controlling your own destiny. You're banking on the fact that you'll get a year, and if you play well, longer. You've got the ball in your hands, and playmakers want the ball in their hands. Better than having to fight a veteran, like half of the teams one could sign with that have QB problems. Very few teams truly have a vacancy at both first and second string right now.



>>Can this thread die already?

God knows I'm tired of arguing and I'm way more than content with my arguments.

 

>> God knows I'm tired of arguing and I'm way more than content with my arguments.

then so am i.

 

Aren't we playing the Browns this week?