Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

free agent QB's


Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Recommended Posts

Peyton Manning (IND)

Michael Vick (PHI)

Brett Favre (MIN)

Seneca Wallace (CLE)

Matt Hasselbeck (SEA)

Matt Moore (CAR)

Alex Smith (SF)

Matt Leinart (HOU)

Marc Bulger (BAL)

Todd Collins (CHI)

Caleb Hanie (CHI)

Brady Quinn (DEN)

Drew Stanton (DET)

Trent Edwards (JAC)

Luke McCown (JAC)

Brodie Croyle (KC)

Chad Pennington (MIA)

Tyler Thigpen (MIA)

Tarvaris Jackson (MIN)

Jim Sorgi (NYG)

Kellen Clemens (NYJ)

Kyle Boller (OAK)

Bruce Gradkowski (OAK)

Dennis Dixon (PIT)

Billy Volek (SD)

Troy Smith (SF)

Kerry Collins (TEN)

Rex Grossman (WAS)

So taking into account that there is no possibility of Vick or Manning or Favre, who do you think we bring in? You know were going to bring in a vet at QB. There is no doubt in my mind. Or do you think we make a trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my short list...

gradkowski

tarvaris jackson

grossman

thigpen

moore

alex smith

derek anderson

[edit: caleb hanie...i keep forgetting about this guy.]

i'm not loving that list, but i don't want anyone over 30. got to be thinking long term with these guys. someone over 30 won't be here long term. the guy needs to fit the young team and be in keeping with the growing young team philosophy richardson has. remember he wanted to give the young guys a chance to get experience on the field and was taking a long view with them. we have to find out who the franchise QB is going to be going forward and the only real way to know is to take risks with younger guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my short list...

gradkowski

tarvaris jackson

grossman

thigpen

moore

alex smith

derek anderson

i'm not loving that list, but i don't want anyone over 30. got to be thinking long term with these guys. someone over 30 won't be here long term. the guy needs to fit the young team and be in keeping with the growing young team philosophy richardson has. remember he wanted to give the young guys a chance to get experience on the field and was taking a long view with them. we have to find out who the franchise QB is going to be going forward and the only real way to know is to take risks with younger guys.

Unless you are under the illusion that Clausen is our long term man and we need an older vet to start a couple years and be a mentor to Clausen. I for one am not ready to give up on him but at the same time am not willing to put all my eggs in that basket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you are under the illusion that Clausen is our long term man and we need an older vet to start a couple years and be a mentor to Clausen. I for one am not ready to give up on him but at the same time am not willing to put all my eggs in that basket
i have hopes that he could be, but i'm not counting on it, neither should the team.

we don't need an old vet to start a couple years to mentor anyone. that concept is as archaic as foxball. having a mentor would be fine, as long as we didn't start him. the danger in having an older one is the temptation would be there to start him anyways instead of letting the young guy take his lumps and get experience that is much needed for development.

you get a young guy and get him in the game. that's the best way for them to learn and the offense to grow with him as a unit.

look around the league and you'll see that most teams that are having QB changes are getting younger guys in earlier and it is going well. rookies are getting the start and they are creating a system that gives them a chance for some success. running the ball a lot is a huge part of that. only teams that should be letting a young QB sit behind an old one are those teams that already have an old vet entrenched into the role with the offense built around him already, like what green bay had. we don't have that here.

we are a young team without an identity on offense, but who is going to be forging one. best way for that to be forged is with a young QB who could end up being the franchise QB. get him in the game and get the offense built around his strengths and weaknesses and get him and the other players in sync with each other.

again, this is in keeping with richardsons plan for the team going forward. he wanted fox to get the young guys on the field getting experience and fox wouldn't do it, so he dumped the old guys. i'm thinking that was one of the conditions that rivera was given. this is a young team on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seneca wallace, Matt Hasselbeck, and Bruce Gradkowski have all been starter's and might not end up with contract's from the team's there on now. Guy's like Manning, Vick, forget em. Troy Smith, Dennis Dixon, and Caleb Hanie are yoynger guy's with some upside but we've got young QB's on the roster now. Would Like to See Matt Moore brought back in next season too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wallace and hass are WCO guys.

i do like the prospect of caleb hanie, though. i keep forgetting about him, but i like waht i saw of him. lots of room for growth and a good bit of potential there.

i need to be including him in my list of prospects for young vet QBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • True.  Sam and Baker did not do well here but went on to better things under better coaching, circumstances or both.  The real question is, ‘why aren’t the Panthers able to get improved performance out of ‘broken toys’, similar to Minnesota and Tampa? That is a rhetorical question.  I think we know the answer.   [The cultural reference to Pogo dates me, I admit.]
    • Did I mention that he was on worse teams?  Yes.  Do QBs alone win games?  No.  Did Cam, on a much better team with some awesome defenses ever have 2 consecutive winning seasons?  No.  So now you are cherry picking,  If the overall stats are similar, you take a look at him.   I told you that you look at his skill set---but you wanted to tell me that he sucks and mentioned performance.  I just presented performance--and his numbers are very similar to Cam Newton's numbers--a player most call the best Panther QB ever--and I agree.  By the way, Fumbles are evidence of how bad his OL has been--so you are saying that a QB in a situation worse than Cam's who has stats and physical abilities very similar to Cam's should not be given a look when you have Bryce Young at QB?  You are going with that story because you simply talked your way into a corner and now you are trying to save face.  No good GM would do what you suggest because "he sucks."  Sorry, but the facts do not support you.  But no matter what eye-opening details I provide, there are some who are going to go their Google machines to try to find some reason to support an ignorant approach to developing the QB position.  You ignored the similarities to Cam and went cherry picking.  I know what you are doing--but I am only suggesting (as I have stated before) that we bring him in as one of three approaches to resolving the QB issue. Compete with Bryce and draft a QB. Basically, I am suggesting that Jones has the potential to replace Dalton and compete with Young.  He is a battered stock that could get better in a better situation--that is human nature.  Instead, I am called a Daniel Jones lover and superfan.  That is good debate--But a real sign of mature thinking is the inability to LOGICALLY consider alternative perspectives--which is actually a characteristic of intelligence.  Just so you know, I critique and perform research in my job.  I am often amazed at how the numbers do not support my suppositions.  I learned that my impression is often wrong until I look at the data.  In this case, I have considered all the important variables and he should get a shot.  Numbers don't lie--and when you and others resort to twisted name calling directed toward the poster--it verifies my position.  
    • I don’t get this, I know that is the popular thought process but I just don’t think it’s true.  For instance head to head last year the ACC had a winning record against the SEC.  The SEC had a losing record in bowl games. This year so far the head to head is 2-3 SEC and that’s with a fluke Vandy win in week one.  I see the ACC taking another head to head winning season after next week.  The SEC is mostly hype with 3 good teams, in my opinion.  But to say any ACC team would get exposed I believe is a stretch 
×
×
  • Create New...